Israel steps up strikes [Archive]

siddharth

Jul13-06, 12:02 PM

Deja vu all over again. Nothing new.
True. Here's a Timeline which describes the conflict
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/819200.stm

On topic, does anyone know what the UN military is doing in all this? Supposedly they have 2,000 peace warriors along the (very narrow) Israeli-Lebanese border, yet there's nothing in the news about what it is they do exactly. I don't think they have a specific mandate for this event?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIFIL

I don't know if they have a mandate for this either. Currently, they are assessing the situation.

While the Israeli army has amassed thousands of soldiers on the border, no Israeli ground troops have been reported within Lebanese territory so far, according to Richard Morzynski, spokesman for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

Many Lebanese fear that Israel will reinstall a buffer zone along the border, as it did from 1982 to 2000. “UNIFIL is in the process of establishing facts on the ground,” said Morzynski. “We’ve been trying to establish a ceasefire, but for that you need two parties. The Israeli position is clear: no discussion until the two soldiers are freed.”

(from http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=54594&SelectRegion=Middle_East&SelectCountry=LEBANON)

devious_

Jul13-06, 12:16 PM

"The soldiers need to be returned." - Bush

What about the 10,000 Arab prisoners, including Palestinian officials, held by Israel?

Evo

Jul13-06, 12:22 PM

What about the 10,000 Arab prisoners, including Palestinian officials, held by Israel?Were they kidnapped? If not, then it's not a valid comparison.

devious_

Jul13-06, 12:31 PM

In most cases it is a perfectly legitimate comparison: <insert IDF or Hezbollah> storms in, overpowers, and imprisons.

George Jones

Jul13-06, 12:49 PM

Were they kidnapped?

Most certainly some of them were.

The Palestinian raid that produced the initial kidnapping was motivated at least partially by recent incidents in which Israelis killed Palestinian civilians.

Palestianians kill Israeli civilians. Israelis kill Palestinian civilians. Israelis kidnap Palestinians. Palestinians kidnap Israelis.

And, genetically (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,605798,00.html), they are the same people.

Evo

Jul13-06, 12:52 PM

Most certainly some of them were.

The Palestinian raid that produced the initial kidnapping was motivated at least partially by recent incidents in which Israelis killed Palestinian civilians.

Palestianians kill Israeli civilians. Israelis kill Palestinian civilians. Israelis kidnap Palestinians. Palestinians kidnap Israelis.

And, genetically (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,605798,00.html), they are the same people.Yeah, but you don't kidnap Israeli soldiers. I don't see Israel backing down on this. I think they're all a bit crazy over there. It's frightening.

Astronuc

Jul13-06, 12:59 PM

Will escalate? :confused:
So the attack from Israel is not an escalated hostility to you? Umm, yes the attack by Israel on Hezbollah is an escalation, as is the attack by Israel on the airports. I did not say anything to the contrary.

AFAIK, Israel only attacked because two of its soldiers were kidnapped, otherwise Israel would not be attacking the territory of Lebanon. Israel for the most part attacks when its territory or people are attacked by gunfire, bombs, rockets, . . .

I was thinking of the potential for other parties, e.g. Syria or Iran to get invovled. I think Jordan and Egyptian governments would not wish to be involved, but there will be enormous pressure from various factions in those countries to become invovled. This will certainly help al Qaida to recruit more members.

MeJennifer

Jul13-06, 01:05 PM

I was thinking of the potential for other parties, e.g. Syria or Iran to get invovled.
I see.

So do you consider that a hostility while Israel is simply defending itself?

George Jones

Jul13-06, 01:17 PM

It's frightening.

I agree.

I had hoped that something would be worked out with respect to first kidnapped soldier, but with the players that the latest kidnappings bring onto the pitch, I have no idea where this is going.

Skyhunter

Jul13-06, 02:26 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/13/D8IR6J401.html

Hello WW3
It was just a feeling but when I heard of this yesterday I got the feeling that this could be the straw that breaks the camels back.

Astronuc

Jul13-06, 02:52 PM

I see. Apparently you don't - you keep misinterpreting my statements - apparently deliberately, which could be construed as hostile. :rolleyes:

So do you consider that a hostility while Israel is simply defending itself? Do I consider what a hostility?

Certainly kidnapping is a hostile act. Shooting and firing rockets at people is a hostile act, when it is not in self-defense.

Do I necessarily agree with Israel's position? No, not entirely.

Do I believe that Israel has the right to defend itself? Certainly, as does any other people.

Do I believe that the Palestinians have the right of self-determination, as well as the right to have their own state? Certainly.

I think Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and a host of other organizations need to renounce violence and stop attacking Israel. I think Israel should show more restraint in certain cases.

Rach3

Jul13-06, 03:13 PM

I agree.

I had hoped that something would be worked out with respect to first kidnapped soldier, but with the players that the latest kidnappings bring onto the pitch, I have no idea where this is going.

First kidnapping was by militants associated with Hamas (Palestinian group), the new one was carried out by Hezbollah (Lebanese). Hezbollah is strongly affiliated with Iran (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah)), which makes this conflict very interesting.

Rach3

Jul13-06, 03:17 PM

Here's an interesting bit of analysis:
The crisis came at a time of deep divisions over international pressure to disarm Hezbollah, which is backed by Syria and Iran.

Hezbollah may get a boost from supporters in resisting the pressure. But the split between the supporters and opponents of Syria, Lebanon's former power broker, could be aggravated by the Israeli offensive and lead to the anti-Syrian government's collapse.

Syria will be the biggest winner if that happens. Damascus has been uncomfortable with the status quo since the February 2005 murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Syria had to withdraw its troops after a 29-year military presence in its tiny neighbor, and a U.N. investigation has implicated some of its top officials in the assassination.http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Lebanon_Mood.html

Rach3

Jul13-06, 03:33 PM

Oil is soaring - opened at $75.20 today on NYMEX, up to $76.88 (USD) now and still going!

http://www.nymex.com/WS_cso.aspx
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=%2477+oil&btnG=Search+News

Manchot

Jul13-06, 09:17 PM

Well, I found this article interesting:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13848003/

Between this and the Iraq War, and we wonder why people are willing to die to destroy us?

Rach3

Jul13-06, 09:45 PM

Oil is soaring - opened at $75.20 today on NYMEX, up to $76.88 (USD) now and still going!

http://www.nymex.com/WS_cso.aspx

WOW! A high of $78.15! :bugeye:

http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&q=%2478%20oil

Evo

Jul13-06, 09:52 PM

Well, I found this article interesting:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13848003/

Between this and the Iraq War, and we wonder why people are willing to die to destroy us?"The European Union called Israel's attacks on Lebanon “disproportionate." Of course it is disproportionate. It's crazy. But everything every country does over there seems disproportionate. Is it never going to end? Is it impossible for these people to be rational?

A friend of mine has a PHD in Computer Science and lives in Manhattan, he's Israeli. His family is there and he can't go back with this going on. It's not the people, it's the government.

Skyhunter

Jul13-06, 11:22 PM

Well, I found this article interesting:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13848003/

Between this and the Iraq War, and we wonder why people are willing to die to destroy us?
Nice to see that as usual, the Bush administration is on top....er...uh...aware of the crisis.

What role has the U.S. played? Today, U.S. diplomat David Welch arrived in Israel, but critics say too late — 17 days after the first Israeli soldier was captured.

And Rice has not been to Israel or the Palestinian territories since last November.

Why do I get the feeling that America has lost it's edge as a world leader?

What is the administration so focused on that they seem to ignore everything not part of their agenda until it reaches crisis stage.

God I hope the midterms result in subpoena power so that we can at least find out what they are doing that is so important.

Astronuc

Jul13-06, 11:29 PM

Critics say U.S. has not paid enough attention to Israel-Lebanon relations from link posted by Manchot. Hilary Clinton was blasting the Bush administration over the lack of attention to Israel and the ME.

Bush is blaming Syria, and Rice is blaming Iran. :rolleyes:

There won't be a WWIII out this. The powers that be have a vested interest in maintaining economic stability.

The US trade deficit increased by more than $63 billion in May, the sixth-largest trade deficit in history, for an annual rate of about $760 billion dollars. High oil prices had an impact.

MeJennifer

Jul14-06, 12:03 AM

Do I believe that Israel has the right to defend itself? Certainly, as does any other people.

People? :confused:
Do you mean country or is it peoples against peoples?

Astronuc

Jul14-06, 12:16 AM

People? :confused:
Do you mean country or is it peoples against peoples? Well, that's a good question. It is hard to tell sometimes.

Countries contain people, but contries are 'managed' or 'controlled' by governments, which are composed of people.

The problem it seems is that the vast majority of people in the countries involved in bilateral or multilateral conflict would prefer to live in peace. Unfortunately, there appear to be minorities which have vested interests in maintaining or escalating hostilities.

People fight and make war. Only people can stop fighting and prevent war.

MeJennifer

Jul14-06, 12:32 AM

But everything every country does over there seems disproportionate. Is it never going to end? Is it impossible for these people to be rational?

Depends what one would define as rational. :smile:
The folks in the Middle East are motivated strongly by religious and ethnic considerations.

As far as I am concerned they can fight and kill each other.
I think that we, we as in the Western world, should simply leave them in their mutual hate. We certainly cannot solve it, and it is not our problem.
Anyway that's my personal opinion, I am sure others will strongly disagree. :smile:

siddharth

Jul14-06, 12:45 AM

The folks in the Middle East are motivated strongly by religious and ethnic considerations.

As far as I am concerned they can fight and kill each other.
I think that we, we as in the Western world, should simply leave them in their mutual hate. We certainly cannot solve it, and it is not our problem.

Ouch! 10 char limit

Yonoz

Jul14-06, 01:42 AM

Hi everyone,
I hope I can clear this up a little, this conflict has caught me in the middle of my uni exams. I thought I'd pop in to see what everyone's thoughts are about this.
Since the IDF's long overdue pullout of Lebanon in PM Barak's term, Hizbullah, under Nasrallah's brilliant leadership, has formed a formidable array of ground-ground rockets. These rockets are hidden near their predetermined launch sites, operated by Hizbullah men residing nearby. These hideouts are scattered all over Lebanon from Beirut to the border, wherever is convenient - inside villages, or in the narrow valleys and dense vegetation common in the region, making them hard to target by a modern airforce. The rest of Hizbullah's infrastructure includes posts right on top of the Israeli-Lebanese border, in some places barely a few metres over an israeli road much traveled by civilians. Hizbullah maintains a system of weapons caches and command centres, though these are most often abandoned at the first sign of trouble. Many of these have been built right on the perimeter of UNIFIL bases - quite infuriating. This is one of the reasons why Israelis are so weary of "peacekeeping" forces.
Early Wednesday morning, Hizbullah started shelling Israeli villages and bases near the Lebanese border. At a few minutes past nine, an Israeli border patrol on the Israeli side of the border was attacked. Three soldiers were killed and two are missing. In the ensuing pursuit inside Lebanon another body was found, and an Israeli tank hit an anti-tank charge was destroyed, all crewmembers killed. Another force attempting to secure the bodies was fired upon by a sniper. One soldier died and two more were injured. This well-thought operation takes months of careful preparation. It has been attempted several times before. In one attempt the kidnapped soldiers died and their bodies were returned together with a captive Israeli colonel turned drug dealer, in return for a large number of prisoners and bodies of Hizbullah men killed in action. Another attempt resulted in failure with several guerrilas dead. Over the last year, Israel has returned the bodies of two Hizbullah guerrilas as an act of trust-building. So much for that.
The event catches Israel in a delicate time. For the first time, this is a government with few ex-generals. The PM and Security Minister were criticized for not having their competitors' military background. Nasrallah, who has a great understanding of Israel, knows they are trapped in a very difficult situation. If they do not respond, they will certainly not be re-elected - but that's probably only in four years' time. The biggest problem Olmert, Peretz and Israel itself are facing is the loss of its detterence. While an Israeli response would mean the start of a violent game of table tennis, there is really no alternative. If the IDF can find ways of destroying Hizbullah's arsenal, it will probably end well for Israel. If Hizbullah managed to tire out the Israeli public, well - that will never happen ;) Hizbullah's demands include the release of convicted murderers, in particular Samir Kuntar, who killed a father and his two daughters in a cold-blooded terrorist attack in '79.
While the Lebanese government is probably the last place Nasrallah looks to for instructions, it is true they have allowed the current situation to arise. Hizbullah has been openly operating and arming itself. Furthermore, Hizbullah takes an active role in the Lebanese government. They have a minister and much of the parliament. So on one hand they are supported by the Lebanese public, are allowed to arm themselves and govern much of the country, but on the other hand no one is responsible for their actions.
The IDF's initial response of detroying bridges and roads and commencing a naval blockade is an attempt to prevent the transport of the kidnapped soldiers. The rest I assume is targeted at Hizbullah weapons and munitions. Hizbullah in return has been firing at Israeli cities and villages, killing two civilians and injuring over a hundred. Yesterday evening saw Iranian made rockets landing in Haifa - Israel's largest port city containing the nation's petrochemical processing heart. Israeli warplanes dropped leaflets over Beirut asking civilians to stay away from Hizbullah posts and offices. Those were attacked a few hours later.

Astronuc

Jul14-06, 07:55 AM

Yonoz, thanks for your perspective.

Gokul43201

Jul14-06, 07:59 AM

Yonoz, does Hizbullah have access to the Lebanese airforce? What could be the reason for cratering runways in the airport at Beirut?

Astronuc

Jul14-06, 08:02 AM

Yonoz, does Hizbullah have access to the Lebanese airforce? What could be the reason for cratering runways in the airport at Beirut? I think that would have to do with preventing Hizbullah from transporting the two kidnapped soldiers to Iran, based upon Yonoz's comments about the bombing of infrastructure to prevent transport of the soldiers from the border area. I would imagine though, that Hizbullah would try to go through Syria then (Damascus airport).

Gokul43201

Jul14-06, 08:24 AM

Yonoz

Jul14-06, 08:36 AM

Is it common belief that a group of terrorists can "escort" a pair of Israeli captives past the check-in, airport security and the flight crew without having to worry about being detained?

I can easily imagine extraction over ground - but boarding an international flight?
That airport isn't really JFK or LAX. Hizbullah uses that airport to bring in some of their weapons. I don't think they go through check-in or airport security like you and I. I imagine it would be quite easy to smuggle two drugged bodies onto a private jet. Elhannan Tannenbaum, the drug smuggler I mentioned earlier, was actually lured into another country and was smuggled into Lebanon.

Gokul43201

Jul14-06, 08:54 AM

Yonoz

Jul14-06, 08:58 AM

Thanks for the clarification. Is it your opinion that the entire airport management is systemically complicit and supporting of their illegal traffic, or that Hizbullah has a small number of "contacts" that help them at the risk of imprisonment?
Hizbullah is often described (last night I heard it on BBC) as a state within a state. They essentially govern parts of Beirut and most of southern Lebanon. Entering Hizbullah controlled areas sometimes involves passing through Hizbullah roadblocks. I imagine that smuggling would be possible by bribes or plain threats to the right individuals. It isn't wise for any Lebanese to get in Hizbullah's way.

Yonoz

Jul14-06, 09:09 AM

I think that would have to do with preventing Hizbullah from transporting the two kidnapped soldiers to Iran, based upon Yonoz's comments about the bombing of infrastructure to prevent transport of the soldiers from the border area. I would imagine though, that Hizbullah would try to go through Syria then (Damascus airport).
That's probably true. However, once the kidnapped soldiers are moved it is easier to find them by various means. A car or a boat can be stopped and searched, a plane cannot. This is why Lebanese ports were left untouched. Furthermore, Syria would be taking a major risk by allowing it to be tied to the kidnapping. They go to great lengths to hide their involvement in such matters. The highway to Damascus was also bombed.

Astronuc

Jul14-06, 09:47 AM

Yonoz

Jul14-06, 09:52 AM

Here is a Wikipedia article on the matter. It is not necessarily neutral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis

If people in the Beqaa (Bekaa) Valley are still producing hashish and opium poppies, then I imagine that those folks have ties to the international Black Market - which is globally active - and that is how groups like Hizbullah can easily obtain financing, arms and munitions.
It's more than just financing, it's another weapon they have against Israel. These days it's much more difficult, but during the Lebanese occupation Hizbullah would smuggle drugs (back then their production was also controlled by the Syrian army) into Israel. Last year an army tracker was indicted after smuggling drugs and perhaps more for them.
Nearly all of their financing and munitions are supplied by Iran though.

Yonoz

Jul14-06, 11:35 AM

There is one more thing I would like to clarify: Israel has no interest in crippling the Lebanese government. It's quite clear what would happen in the void left.

Gokul43201

Jul14-06, 11:54 AM

There is one more thing I would like to clarify: Israel has no interest in crippling the Lebanese government. It's quite clear what would happen in the void left.A big question is: Is the Lebanese Govt going to rally behind Hizbullah (spurred no doubt, by the Hizb members already sitting in the Govt) or are they going to turn against them for dragging Lebanon into the conflict? Hey, why not just provide safe transit of the problem (ie: the captors and captives) into Damascus and then convince Israel that they're facing the wrong way? The present Lebanese Govt isn't, especially after the Hariri killing, very fond of Syria.

Yonoz

Jul14-06, 12:04 PM

A big question is: Is the Lebanese Govt going to rally behind Hizbullah (spurred no doubt, by the Hizb members already sitting in the Govt) or are they going to turn against them for dragging Lebanon into the conflict? Hey, why not just provide safe transit of the problem (ie: the captors and captives) into Damascus and then convince Israel that they're facing the wrong way? The present Lebanese Govt isn't, especially after the Hariri killing, very fond of Syria.
A few moments ago I saw a Lebanese government official anouncing the Lebanese government is ready to negotiate via a 3rd party. A reporter immediately asked him "how can you negotiate about something a few moments ago you said you have nothing to do with?". He answered "The situation needs to be dealt with and the government should be the one to deal with it". I cannot speak for the Lebanese people but my impression is that there is a lot of resentment against Hizbullah. As I mentioned, Syria will not agree to be involved, as it will prove they still control much in Lebanon. They're quite happy about the current situation, BTW, which personally worries me, but Israel will not attack them as they have been granted a defensive "umbrella" by Ahmedinajad. The last thing Israel wants is to start a war.
Hizbulla will not divulge any details to the Lebanese government about the kidnapped soldiers as that would probably compromise their secrecy, Israeli intelligence has a far reach.

Yonoz

Jul14-06, 12:06 PM

A few moments ago Israeli warplanes bombed Hizbulla HQ in south Beirut. Israeli TV reports Nasrallah was in the building that was bombed, his status is unclear.
The IDF Chief of Staff has said that Nasrallah was not the target. Nasralla spoke on the phone to TV reporters

Greg Bernhardt

Jul14-06, 01:14 PM

CNN also is reporting an Israeli Naval ship was hit by rockets. Hizbullah is declaring open war.

wolram

Jul14-06, 01:24 PM

Astronuc

Jul14-06, 01:59 PM

Hizbullah is declaring open war. After the fact? :rolleyes: It seems as if their actions yesterday were a declaration of war.

I wonder if this was planned in conjunction with the Hamas action and Israeli response in Gaza?

Greg Bernhardt

Jul14-06, 02:06 PM

After the fact? :rolleyes: It seems as if their actions yesterday were a declaration of war.

Well, Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has officially announced it via audio tape.

Astronuc

Jul14-06, 02:28 PM

Well, Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has officially announced it via audio tape.

I guess it's a matter of Shoot First, then make a Declaration of War!

Still, I have to wonder if this was coordinated with Hamas. Then Israel is being attacked on two fronts - in the south on the border with Gaza, and in the north with Hizbullah.

Bystander

Jul14-06, 02:52 PM

(snip)Still, I have to wonder if this was coordinated with Hamas. (snip)

Unlikely --- coincidental "business as usual."

Edit: possibly "opportunistic, copy-cat one-upsmanship."

Yonoz

Jul14-06, 03:03 PM

Like I said, the kidnapping that started all this was planned for months. Something's always happening here, probably just a coincidence. Of course, Iran could have coordinated this since the Hamas operation was controlled from the Syrian office.

gravenewworld

Jul14-06, 08:16 PM

I have come to the conclusion that everyone in the Middle East, Palestinian and Israeli, is insane.

MeJennifer

Jul14-06, 08:25 PM

Well rationality is problematic since whenever Israel is involved we get:

Biblicalists + Israel apologists + Jews + Anti-semites + Islamists + Palestine supporters + a couple of other groups I forgot.

And they usually happen to disagree.

:smile:

Cyrus

Jul14-06, 08:26 PM

I have come to the conclusion that everyone in the Middle East, Palestinian and Israeli, is insane.

I think you just won the nobel prize. :rofl:

Skyhunter

Jul15-06, 01:02 PM

I have come to the conclusion that everyone in the Middle East, Palestinian and Israeli, is insane.
Aggression has not led to any meaningful conflict resolution in 60+ years. After the 1948-49 war sparked by Israel's unilateral declaration of statehood, The Zionists, who won the war sowed the seeds of future conflict by opposing Palestinian statehood.

"[At Lausanne,] Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinians were trying to save by negotiations what they had lost in the war--a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Israel, however... [preferred] tenuous armistice agreements to a definite peace that would involve territorial concessions and the repatriation of even a token number of refugees. The refusal to recognize the Palestinians' right to self-determination and statehood proved over the years to be the main source of the turbulence, violence, and bloodshed that came to pass." Israeli author, Simha Flapan, "The Birth Of Israel."
http://www.cactus48.com/statehood.html

darius

Jul15-06, 01:15 PM

[QUOTE=George Jones]Most certainly some of them were.

The Palestinian raid that produced the initial kidnapping was motivated at least partially by recent incidents in which Israelis killed Palestinian civilians.

Palestianians kill Israeli civilians. Israelis kill Palestinian civilians. Israelis kidnap Palestinians. Palestinians kidnap Israelis.

And, genetically (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,605798,00.html), they are the same people.[/QU
Ditto! George makes very good sense!!!!

kyleb

Jul15-06, 02:09 PM

Many Israelis are Arab Jews, but many more are actually of European descent. But that is beside the point; we took what was there (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Map_of_Jewish_settlements_in_Palestine_in_1947.png ) and built a timebomb (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/97/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png) out of it, and we haven't been doing anything reasonable to work toward a resolution to this impending disaster.

MeJennifer

Jul15-06, 02:13 PM

Many Israelis are Arab Jews, but many more are actually of European descent.
So the ones of European decent have genetically no ties with bilibcal Jews whatsoever?

Yonoz

Jul15-06, 02:37 PM

After the 1948-49 war sparked by Israel's unilateral declaration of statehood, The Zionists, who won the war sowed the seeds of future conflict by opposing Palestinian statehood.Unilateral declaration of statehood... now that's funny :rofl:

Astronuc

Jul15-06, 04:19 PM

So the ones of European decent have genetically no ties with bilibcal Jews whatsoever? In some cases, no. Many Khazars converted to Judaism when the Khan and Khazar nobility adopted the religion. Khazaria comprised parts of eastern Ukraine, western Kazahkstan, and southern Russia.

See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazaria#Conversion_to_Judaism_and_relations_with_ world_Jewry
At some point in the last decades of the 8th century or the early 9th century, the Khazar royalty and nobility converted to Judaism, and part of the general population followed. The extent of the conversion is debated. Ibn al-Faqih reported in the 10th century that "all the Khazars are Jews." Notwithstanding this statement, most scholars believed that only the upper classes converted to Judaism; there is some support for this in contemporary Muslim texts. This is consistent with other sources I have.

Similarly, other Europeans converted to Judaism, and perhaps married Jews from the diaspora.

It is not such a simple matter.

kyleb

Jul15-06, 05:31 PM

We all have genetic ties to some extent or another. However, the point of comment there was simply to point out that the argument of "genetically, they are the same people" is reaching quite a bit, especially considering the fact that most Israelis are Ashkenazi rather than Sephardi. But again, the problem here remains regardless of any of that, and what we need focus on is implementing a reasoned resolution.

turbo

Jul15-06, 05:40 PM

Unilateral declaration of statehood... now that's funny :rofl:Not really funny at all. When the Zionist terror squads "ethnically cleansed" Palestinian towns through murder and intimidation, the world looked the other way. When the Zionists claimed statehood, the UN said that they could accept that if Israel allowed the Palestinian refugees to return and reclaim their property or accept restitution. The Zionists have done none of this, and have tried to keep the Palestinians in a permanent stateless refugee status. Every bit of armed resistance by the Palestinians is decried as "terrorism", meanwhile the Israelis do exactly the same things to the Palestinians, going as far as to murder their leaders - usually killing innocent men, women and children in the process. This is a complex situation, and the Palestinian side of the story is rarely told in US media - especially the part about Israel's terror squads.

MeJennifer

Jul15-06, 06:43 PM

Hurkyl

Jul15-06, 07:01 PM

Not really funny at all. When the Zionist terror squads
Surely it was clear that Yonoz was laughing at the notion that anyone would call the formation of Israel "unilateral"? I can only make sense of your post if you thought that Yonoz was laughing at the actual events that occurred! (Or, if you simply didn't care what was said, but still wanted to make it look like you were replying to something)

That said, it's really hard to have sympathy for the Palestinian cause when all of their sympathizers try to blame Israel when militants endanger civilians by hiding among (and as) them... and can't even seem tell the difference between shooting at militants hiding among civilians, and simply shooting at civilians. (Maybe most sympathizers aren't like this... but I sure see a lot of it here, and most of my exposure to ME affairs comes from here)

muadib2k

Jul15-06, 07:44 PM

I Think its important to remember several historical events that led to the conflict today. Several years ago when Israel withdrew from the buffer zone it occupied in southern Lebanon (which they took over previously to prevent exactly what is happening today...namely rocket attacks) a UN resolution was passed that contained 2 key points:
1. Israel must withdraw to the INTERNATIOANLLY (not set by israel, lebanon, but by the entire world) accepted border line.
2. Lebanon must assume control of the border and disarm any millitas in there.

When Israel pulled out of lebanon is has met the first part (100%). However, the government of lebanon did not even make an attempt at controlling the border. Not a single soldier was deployed; instead the region was left to the complete control of militas.

It is really sad what is happening to Lebanon right now; dare I say that it all could have been avoided had the Lebanese government took control over their own borders like any other soverign government. However, that was not the case mainly due to the government of syria (which until very recently had a VERY sizeable army present in Lebanon).

russ_watters

Jul15-06, 11:57 PM

I have a somewhat softer view, muadib2k - with Syria maintaining considerable control over Lebanon, it was tough for them to do anything about that problem. Since recenly that has decreased, maybe it will be possible for Lebanon to really take control of their country. Perhaps that is what Israel is trying to cause - perhaps even the UN can make it happen.

SOS2008

Jul16-06, 12:02 AM

Ah, how wonderful it is that democracy has emerged in the Middle East. Too bad no time can be allowed for it to blossom. At least anyway that's the argument made for occupying Iraq isn't it?

Israel is hysterical and over-reacting as usual. I only hope the U.S. (or even Europe) will not condone it this time, and will pressure Israel to chill out.

devil-fire

Jul16-06, 01:05 AM

That said, it's really hard to have sympathy for the Palestinian cause when all of their sympathizers try to blame Israel when militants endanger civilians by hiding among (and as) them... and can't even seem tell the difference between shooting at militants hiding among civilians, and simply shooting at civilians. (Maybe most sympathizers aren't like this... but I sure see a lot of it here, and most of my exposure to ME affairs comes from here)

iv read thoughts similar to this referring to Iraq as well. however, it seems to be overlooked that it is often necessary to "hide among civilians" for militia/insurgents because of the nature conflict. what i mean by that is that it can be vary dangerous, for example, to attack an armed patrol without using the buildings beside a street for cover and as a means to escape the encounter. its just not as effective to attack a force on a street from another street

militias may hide rockets in a residential neighborhoods because its easy to get to them quickly compared to burying them away from an urban area. also many militia leaders are civilians and live with family or relatives so when they are bombed at home and there are civilian casualties, it isn't as if the people are trying to use their children as human shields. i haven't read anything credible that claims these militias/insurgents are trying to hide among civilians just because it fuels a campaign of propaganda

to protect Israelis, Israel has often accepted a high likelihood of human collateral damage in attacking enemy militia. this isn't notably unethical or uncommon but it can often be a source of resentment from the community involved and this can produce more militia. the idea of saving Palestinian lives by putting Israeli service-men's lives at risk (raiding an apartment to arrest/kill someone instead of bombing the building) isn't something Israeli security forces seem to be overly concern with at times (understandably so) but this can be short sighted.

Yonoz

Jul16-06, 01:12 AM

When the Zionist terror squads "ethnically cleansed" Palestinian towns through murder and intimidation, the world looked the other way. When the Zionists claimed statehood, the UN said that they could accept that if Israel allowed the Palestinian refugees to return and reclaim their property or accept restitution. The Zionists have done none of this, and have tried to keep the Palestinians in a permanent stateless refugee status. Every bit of armed resistance by the Palestinians is decried as "terrorism", meanwhile the Israelis do exactly the same things to the Palestinians, going as far as to murder their leaders - usually killing innocent men, women and children in the process. This is a complex situation, and the Palestinian side of the story is rarely told in US media - especially the part about Israel's terror squads.
You need to get some history books. In the meantime, try reading about the 1947 partition plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan). Being an Israeli and having served in the IDF, I'd love to hear more about these "terror squads".

Yonoz

Jul16-06, 01:20 AM

Israel is hysterical and over-reacting as usual.What kind of response did you expect?
BTW IMO it's the media that's over-reacting. I know there's a slim chance you'll believe me, but I'd like to mention that most of what I see on BBC and CNN is grossly inaccurate. You get the impression as if Beirut in its entirety is targetted, while only one neighbourhood is being bombarded and that after being showered with pamphlets asking civilians to get away several hours earlier. Of course, foreign reporters never go into that Hizbullah neighbourhood so they have no idea.

Yonoz

Jul16-06, 01:48 AM

it seems to be overlooked that it is often necessary to "hide among civilians" for militia/insurgents because of the nature conflict.Well then, isn't it just as necessary for a military to risk harming these civilians in order to protect its own civilians?

i haven't read anything credible that claims these militias/insurgents are trying to hide among civilians just because it fuels a campaign of propagandaIt's mostly because they believed Israel won't attack, the propaganda doesn't really matter since they just make it up anyway.

to protect Israelis, Israel has often accepted a high likelihood of human collateral damage in attacking enemy militia.Since you only hear about the cases in which the attacks were authorized, I can only ask you to believe me when I say the IDF and Israeli leadership do not decide to attack unless there is intelligence of an impending attack of which the target is a crucial part.
the idea of saving Palestinian lives by putting Israeli service-men's lives at risk (raiding an apartment to arrest/kill someone instead of bombing the building) isn't something Israeli security forces seem to be overly concern with at times (understandably so) but this can be short sighted.Again, you're ill-informed. Targets are arrested when possible, partly due to the fact more can be gained by interrogating them. In most cases they reside in densely populated areas so getting in and out involves a major incursion - which would probably claim many more casualties from both sides. In places such as Gaza and most refugee camps, the risk is too high due to unknowns such as explosive charges and the vicinity of many other armed fighters. Decisions that involve civilian casualties are taken very carefuly, and there's an on-going debate in Israeli society as to their value - which is why there are legal advisors present at every step. Unfortunately, the decision-making isn't transparent due to the sensitive information it involves.

It seems when combatting terrorism, you can be too successful. This conflict is on many fronts, one of which is world public opinion. It seems to be the only front we're losing.
I can't blame anyone for being disinformed. It's natural to sympthise with the losing side - I do it myself (in real life debates with Israelis I usually take the other side). Attention-seeking reporters and eager "specialists" don't make it easier to see our side of the picture - somewhat infuriating for Israelis watching foreign news channels on cable or abroad. It's because of this many Israelis have long stopped caring what the world thinks, and personally I'm starting to feel the same. We just want to live here peacefuly. Hopefully, Hizbullah won't succeed in halting the planned pullout from the West Bank. It would be harder to achieve public concensus for that since the same rockets fired daily from Gaza would hit Israel's largest suburbs if fired from the West Bank, not to mention what Iranian and Syrian supplied weapons could do.

darius

Jul16-06, 09:07 AM

The problem I have with Israel is that people stay in their countires and countries are made in the course of generations by fighting for your homeland. Countries are not made by buying them. I really do not like Arab terrorists and islamic militants but if someone threw me out of my country or I was made a refugee in my own homeland, and the world is on the side with the money and power, I probably would be throwing rocks out of desperation. I think both sides are equally blameable. World attention is taken away from more urgent worldissues that need to be immediately addressed because of the conflict there. If it were not for the oil, no one would give a damn about the region. And I often I wish that oil would run out and countries like Saudi Arabia and such would finally have to rely on their brains to be productive like the rest of us and not on oil money.

Office_Shredder

Jul16-06, 09:31 AM

The problem I have with Israel is that people stay in their countires and countires are made in the course of generations by fighting for your homeland. Countries are not made by buying them. I really do not like Arab terrorists and islamic militants but if someone threw me out of my country or I was made a refugee in my own homeland, and the world is on the side with the money and power, I probably would be throwing rocks out of desperation.

This would be true, except the creation of the state of Israel began around 1900

darius

Jul16-06, 10:23 AM

This would be true, except the creation of the state of Israel began around 1900
This is a mere hundred years. I mean people live in their countries over generations. They are tied to the land over hundreds of years. Except of course the New World countries. And as soon as the money generated by oil runs out in these countries, so will the source of funding for Islamic militants.

Office_Shredder

Jul16-06, 10:58 AM

This is a mere hundred years. I mean people live in their countries over generations. They are tied to the land over hundreds of years. Except of course the New World countries. And as soon as the money generated by oil runs out in these countries, so will the source of funding for Islamic militants.

100 years IS generations dude. Like, five of them.

And most palestinians AREN'T tied to the land. It was the Zionists who built the land up from a desert wasteland, who built the cities, who created the infrastructure, who even freed it from British control.

The Palestinians DIDN'T have their own country before Israel, they were just controlled by another country. And then it was the Zionists actions that got Palestine their own state.

Yonoz

Jul16-06, 11:19 AM

Darius, I propose you read a little about Israel's historical roots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Historical_roots).

darius

Jul16-06, 11:21 AM

But the Paliestinians lived there, and have been living there for hundreds of years. By the way I do not support either side. I am sorry for my comments. I do not believe in quibbling about politics and I wondered why I even bothered to write this on a physics forum. If those people cannot make peace among themselves, I propose the world should leave them to their own so they either come to terms with each other or self destruct. Regardless of what is said here, the world opinion is not going to change regarding what is going on there and I know people around the world are tired about hearing about a never resolvable conflict. Good bye.

muadib2k

Jul16-06, 11:26 AM

This is a mere hundred years. I mean people live in their countries over generations

Prior to the Roman empire (thousands of years ago) there was a country by the name of Israel situated in the same area where the modern state of Israel is. And thousands of years ago (thousands of years prior to creation of Islam), Jerusalem was the capital city.

Can anybody name a single historical Palestinian city ?

That is not to say that Palestinians have never lived in the region, but that there is clear evidance to the existance of an israeli country in that area that dates back 5000-6000 years.

Astronuc

Jul16-06, 11:43 AM

This would be true, except the creation of the state of Israel began around 1900 Not quite.

There were Jew leaders who called for the return of the Jews to Palestine for decades before Theodor Herzl (1860-1904, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Hertzl) wrote his influential pamphlet, The Jewish State. But Herzl's work pushed the formation of a political movement to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The first Zionist Congress, convened by Herzl, was held in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897. Herzl was less attached to Palestine than some other "Zionists", and considered at one stage the creation of a Jewish state in what is now Uganda. There was consideration of a restored Jewish state. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1896herzl.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state
http://www.mideastweb.org/israeldeclaration.htm
http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/state.htm

However, Palestine and much of the middle east was under the control of the Ottoman empire until after World War I (aka The Great War).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

The Allied Powers, led by Britain, France, Russia, and later also Italy and the United States, defeated the Central Powers, led by Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
The Ottoman Empire was on the losing side, and under pressure from Russia, the OE receded from Europe - which had been happening for some time (viz the Balkan Wars - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_Wars).

Of course, the reader must keep in the mind the interpretations and perspectives (pro or con) of the writers at the various sites.

Astronuc

Jul16-06, 11:49 AM

That is not to say that Palestinians have never lived in the region, but that there is clear evidance to the existance of an israeli country in that area that dates back 5000-6000 years. Not in the context of the modern nation or country, and I believe one problem with some of the discussion is that people are applying modern concepts retrospectively.

There were city states and surrounding populations, and there tribes, clans, coalitions, . . . Some tribes were nomadic and while others became established in specific locations. That has been one source of conflict throughout history - two or more populations competing for the same natural resource. :rolleyes:

For some context -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#Boundaries_and_name
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine - read caveats regarding accuracy and objectivity of this article.

muadib2k

Jul16-06, 12:01 PM

Not in the context of the modern nation or country, and I believe one problem with some of the discussion is that people are applying modern concepts retrospectively

No I agree with you that it is not in the same contex of a modern day state, that was not what I was trying to convey. I was simply trying to show that "Zionists" simply do not claim that area of the world based on events in the past few hundreds of years, but (in part) based on historical ties going back several thousands of years.

Astronuc

Jul16-06, 12:13 PM

I was simply trying to show that "Zionists" simply do not claim that area of the world based on events in the past few hundreds of years, but (in part) based on historical ties going back several thousands of years. Yes, I would agree with this assessment. But there are also parallel attempts on the part of others for historical claims by Palestinians to the same area. Before Abraham settled in the area, there were other tribes present.

The historical facts are mired in literature which is a mix of subjective and objective writing - so the facts are not so clear.

And it is irrelevant to the current situation. What happened historically should not prevent people from living in peace - except for the fact that some people chose to harm to other human beings - and that is the problem.

muadib2k

Jul16-06, 12:30 PM

And it is irrelevant to the current situation. What happened historically should not prevent people from living in peace - except for the fact that some people chose to harm to other human beings - and that is the problem..

Ideally, in a perfect world, I would agree with that statement. In fact, the world would be a much better place if that were true. However the problem, in my personal opionion, is that there is a complete lack of desire by some elements, and even countries, in the region to compromise.

In general (key word here) the world, Israel including, accepts the right of palestinians to live and share that area of the world. Some elements, Hamas and Hizbollah are some, refuse to accept the right of Israel to exist. They use both historical arguments (of questionable validity) and religious arguments (and religion in itself relies very heavily on history) to make their claims.

Yonoz

Jul16-06, 01:09 PM

devil-fire

Jul16-06, 01:27 PM

Well then, isn't it just as necessary for a military to risk harming these civilians in order to protect its own civilians?
i totally agree, this is core function of any state or government (edit), to defend its self.

It's mostly because they believed Israel won't attack, the propaganda doesn't really matter since they just make it up anyway.
what i think your saying is that because israel will be resistant to attack targets that could involve a lot of unwanted casualties, these targets try to exploit this by living in densely populated areas. i don't think this is primarily why militia are usually in heavy urban areas. because militia don't go on tours of duty, they usually are in the same residence as before they became militia. as well, being in an urban area adds anonymity (this i think is key). basically i don't think the reasons why its hard to attack an enemy in this case is actually why the enemy uses that defense.

Targets are arrested when possible, partly due to the fact more can be gained by interrogating them. In most cases they reside in densely populated areas so getting in and out involves a major incursion - which would probably claim many more casualties from both sides. In places such as Gaza and most refugee camps, the risk is too high due to unknowns such as explosive charges and the vicinity of many other armed fighters. Decisions that involve civilian casualties are taken very carefuly, and there's an on-going debate in Israeli society as to their value - which is why there are legal advisors present at every step. Unfortunately, the decision-making isn't transparent due to the sensitive information it involves.

It seems when combatting terrorism, you can be too successful. This conflict is on many fronts, one of which is world public opinion. It seems to be the only front we're losing.

rereading this statement im not sure i understand what you are implying. iv assumed that after its been concluded to attack a target the order of priority goes something like this 1st) attack the target 2nd) minimize friendly casualties 3rd) minimize collateral damage. if i understand your statement, your saying that minimizing friendly casualties and minimizing collateral casualties are being gradually reversed in priority? this sounds surprising to me.

Yonoz

Jul16-06, 02:44 PM

what i think your saying is that because israel will be resistant to attack targets that could involve a lot of unwanted casualties, these targets try to exploit this by living in densely populated areas. i don't think this is primarily why militia are usually in heavy urban areas. because militia don't go on tours of duty, they usually are in the same residence as before they became militia. as well, being in an urban area adds anonymity (this i think is key). basically i don't think the reasons why its hard to attack an enemy in this case is actually why the enemy uses that defense.I thought we were talking about Hizbullah's weapons and munitions hidden in homes - I'm not used to talking about the Hizbullah and Palestians in the same conversation... So, if we're discussing Hizbullah, then currently specific individuals aren't targeted. Starting this evening, after air force units have completed higher priority missions and the civilian population has been given ample warnings and enough time to leave, individual houses of known Hizbulla members are being bombed - of course no-one expects them to still be there. I don't think any one person is worth the resources and command chain headache.
As for the Palestians, the next comment explains this better.

rereading this statement im not sure i understand what you are implying. iv assumed that after its been concluded to attack a target the order of priority goes something like this 1st) attack the target 2nd) minimize friendly casualties 3rd) minimize collateral damage. if i understand your statement, your saying that minimizing friendly casualties and minimizing collateral casualties are being gradually reversed in priority? this sounds surprising to me.What I mean to say is that the two often go hand in hand. It goes like this: individuals are targeted if they're constantly initiating acts of terror or if there is intelligence of an upcoming attack and there are no other options. Several plans are considered, and the result is presented to the appropriate authority for authorization. When possible, an arrest is carried out, because the target can be interrogated, used as a bargaining chip, and because it's the right thing to do. Usually the incursion needed to arrest the target is deemed too dangerous - in such cases an incursion would mean losses to both sides, and due to the technical and methodical superiority of the military the losses are usually heavier on the other side. If the target plans to carry out a major act of terror against Israeli civilians they probably will not care much for collateral damage and authorize bombing. Some plans simply are not authorized.

darius

Jul16-06, 03:27 PM

Regarding having claims to a land I suppose by that logic the American Indians should claim the U.S. If one loves one's country one stays there and fights till the end for it, not departs and comes back after 2000 years and lays claims due to some claims in a religious book.

kyleb

Jul16-06, 06:11 PM

Pardon me if I re-emphasize that the current Lebanese conflict is related, but does not necessarily have all that much to do with the Palestinian problem. They associate themselves with it because they use the prestige and frequent excuses for shows of force to gain political power in Lebanon and funding from their benefactors, Iran and Syria. This last pair cares for the Palestinians like I care for cockroaches.
Even if you don't belive the rest of the Muslim world has any at all concern for the Palestinian people; surely you can accept the fact that Palestinian land has cultural and religious significance to the Muslim world?

kyleb

Jul16-06, 06:13 PM

Yonoz

Jul16-06, 06:18 PM

Even if you don't belive the rest of the Muslim world has any at all concern for the Palestinian people; surely you can accept the fact that Palestinian land has cultural and religious significance to the Muslim world?I believe many Muslims care for the Palestinian people - it's their leaders that abuse this.
I absolutely agree with that second part.

kyleb

Jul16-06, 07:31 PM

Those facts are precisely the relationship between the current conflict in Lebanon and the continuing incursion and occupation of Palestinian land.

muadib2k

Jul16-06, 10:33 PM

Those facts are precisely the relationship between the current conflict in Lebanon and the continuing incursion and occupation of Palestinian land.

The current conflict was most likely initiated by Iran on the eve of the G8 summit. Iran is under a lot of stress due to its nuclear ambitions and the gathering of the G8 would have no doubt produced even more pressure. By activating a second front through its proxy in Lebanon, world focus is shifted away from its nuclear issues and onto the newly created conflict.

Believe it or not but Hamas and Hizbullah do not hold much love for each other as they belong to different sects of Islam (i.e. the same difference that currently fuels the civil war in Iraq and fueled the Iraq-Iran war).

kyleb

Jul16-06, 10:56 PM

My point is that they all want to retain Palestinian control of the land which is being lost, and that is what fuels the aggression of such organizations as well as cooperation between them.

Yonoz

Jul17-06, 02:20 AM

My point is that they all want to retain Palestinian control of the land which is being lost, and that is what fuels the aggression of such organizations as well as cooperation between them.That's oversimplified IMO. Israel bothers these organisations more because it's a regional power that their masters oppose.
To undermine the stability of thew peace process, Iran pays Palestinian terror cells to attack the crossings that are the Gaza strip's lifeline. They do this because they know Israel will close the crossings and create instability in the strip.

kyleb

Jul17-06, 04:22 AM

Yonoz

Jul17-06, 05:50 AM

I contest that your use of prase "regional power" is greatly oversimplifying the situation considering the Palestinian the land which they contenue to loose (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/settlements_checkpoints.stm). That more than a regional power, it is widespread occupation with continuing expansion on land which has cultural and religious significance to the Muslim world.Israel pulled out of Lebanon 6 years ago, to an internationally recognised border. In return we got a hanging sword in the form of Hizbullah's rocket array. Israel pulled out of the Gaza strip and in return we get daily rockets on nearby towns and kibbutzim. These are not the actions of people who want to end the occupation. These actions are meant to halt the peace process, inflame the situation, reduce stability and plunge this region into war, from which Iran and Syria hope to emerge stronger.

MeJennifer

Jul17-06, 05:54 AM

the peace process
There has not been any peace process there!

Peace process is just like soothing words, unreal, make believe.

Gokul43201

Jul17-06, 08:33 AM

That more than a regional power, it is widespread occupation with continuing expansion on land which has cultural and religious significance to the Muslim world.Continuing expansion?

In the last 15 or so years, we've had:

1. Rabin's signing of the Oslo Accords with the PLO in '93
2. Declaration of peace between Jordan and Israel in '94
3. Rejection of Oslo by Hamas; and a barrage of suicide bombings from them resulting in the election of the hardliner, Netanyahu
4. Withdrawal from the Hebron
5. Signing of the Wye River Memorandum giving greater power to the Palestinian Authority.
6. Barak initiates unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000
7. Barak's offer of Palestinian State on 90% of the West Bank and Gaza is rejected by Arafat during the Camp David talks
8. After failure of talks and subsequent Palestinian uprising (al-Aqsa), public sentiment turns against Barak
9. Sharon executes a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, but also proposes building of West Bank Barrier which effectively reannexes nearly 10% of the WB from Palestinian control.

kyleb

Jul17-06, 04:46 PM

I'm talking about the continuing destruction of Palestinian homes and the construction of Israel settlements, surely you are aware of at least a little of that happening within the last 15 or so years?

Office_Shredder

Jul17-06, 05:20 PM

By continuing construction of Israel settlements, I assume you're referring to that time last year when they withdrew from all of them in the Gaza strip?

Or are you talking about that plan they have to withdraw from the supermajority of them in the West Bank?

kyleb

Jul17-06, 05:37 PM

I'm talking about the land they contenue to expand upon there. Are you honestly not aware of even a little of that?

muadib2k

Jul17-06, 08:23 PM

I'm talking about the continuing destruction of Palestinian homes

Maybe if Hamas did not store is weapons, stage war or fire missiles from civilian homes, those home would not be destroyed.

I'm talking about the land they contenue to expand upon there. Are you honestly not aware of even a little of that?

I'm aware that Sharon got on the wrong side of many Israelis when he forced hundreds of families to evacuate their settlements not too long ago.

kyleb

Jul17-06, 08:35 PM

But again, what about the new settlements and continuing occupation; do you not care to consider how those actions are perceived by Muslims?

muadib2k

Jul17-06, 08:51 PM

continuing occupation

continuing occupation? What was wrong with the Barak deal that arafat had to reject it ?

new settlements

could you please define "new settlements" and possibly name some ?.

Bystander

Jul17-06, 11:30 PM

But again, what about the new settlements and continuing occupation; do you not care to consider how those actions are perceived by Muslims?

Given that breathing is perceived by M(o,u)sl(e,i)ms as unacceptable activity by Israelis, does it make a difference?

kyleb

Jul18-06, 12:01 AM

Bystander, stereotyping such as you did here is in the way of making a difference.

continuing occupation? What was wrong with the Barak deal that arafat had to reject it ?

could you please define "new settlements" and possibly name some ?.
By new settlements I mean stuff like this (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/israel/map/). As for the deal, the offer wasn't made publicly so all we have are a few conflicting reports from insiders for that.

vanesch

Jul18-06, 12:53 AM

Prior to the Roman empire (thousands of years ago) there was a country by the name of Israel situated in the same area where the modern state of Israel is. And thousands of years ago (thousands of years prior to creation of Islam), Jerusalem was the capital city.

Can anybody name a single historical Palestinian city ?

That is not to say that Palestinians have never lived in the region, but that there is clear evidance to the existance of an israeli country in that area that dates back 5000-6000 years.

All these historical references are of no meaning. As someone said here, then the US should be returned to the native Americans, Europe to the Neanderthals (of which there are no representatives anymore), Australia to the Aborigenes which themselves ousted another people before them (I think ~ 7th century or so), ....

The only reason of existance of a current country is that the people in power there, most recently had the biggest guns and/or most powerful friends. As long as they remain in that position, they are the legitime owners of the country. And the day that they get ousted themselves because someone comes in with bigger guns and more powerful friends, the invaders will be the new legitime owners of the country and the previous ones will be reduced to the status of terrorists/refugees/poor people. This is why the Australians are master in Australia, this is why the US citizens are master in the US, and why most people are master in their country.

So Israel's reason of existance is that they are there, have the biggest guns, and the most powerful friends. As is the case anywhere else.

Bystander

Jul18-06, 02:23 AM

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22israel+must+be+destroyed%22&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&x=wrt

"Stereotyping?" Not really --- Ahmadinejad, Hamas, and H(e,i)zbollah may be out of step with the current "mainstream" PR campaign of "peace and love," and picking up a few "bad vibes" from surprising quarters (the Saudis among others).

Do the Palestinians have legitimate beefs? Sure. With their great grandfathers for being so stupid as to listen to Arab governments in the region in 1948 and playing "all or nothing" when the UN said, "New day, half and half" --- now they've got "nothing" but what the Israelis have given them, want more, and haven't figured out that biting the hand that feeds you is more than a little stupid. "Unto the seventh generation?" Means 'nother 30 years and some kid is going to say, "Grandfather, your great grandfather got his *** handed to him in 1948. You got your *** handed to you 30 years ago. Now you think I'm stupid enough to get my *** handed to me today because you and your father and his father and all of you were stupid? Forget it!"

Office_Shredder

Jul18-06, 06:41 AM

By new settlements I mean stuff like this (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/israel/map/). As for the deal, the offer wasn't made publicly so all we have are a few conflicting reports from insiders for that.

Look at the number of blue vs. orange settlements

kyleb

Jul18-06, 10:19 AM

Look at all of it and note the continuing occupation and expansion on Palestinian land.

Office_Shredder

Jul18-06, 10:23 AM

kyleb, there is quite clearly no expansion.... in fact, more settlements were taken down than built up, and the new ones are already in heavy settlement areas.

And read the little legend! It even shows that the settlements are in territory under Israeli control after Oslo II.

Anttech

Jul18-06, 10:35 AM

there is quite clearly no expansion.

http://www.google.be/search?hl=nl&hs=bTW&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=israeli+settlement+expansion&spell=1

Really come on, they have been at it for years.

Office_Shredder

Jul18-06, 10:38 AM

A google link to websites isn't strong evidence. Especially when it doesn't respond to my claim that the Palestinians continue attacking despite recent Israeli moves to withdraw from Palestinian lands.

Anttech

Jul18-06, 10:48 AM

I wasnt responding to that, I was responding to your erroneous claim that the Isreali's havent been expanding there settlements. When it is clear that they have.

To respond to you claim: Of course the palestinians (the palestine 'terrorists/whatever') will contiune to attack, they are penned in, by a from their percpective, a hostile occupying force.

I dont condon what they do, nor do I condon what Israel is currently doing, nor do I condon Hez. current rocket attacks. Israel right now is showing how utterly incompitant they truely are as a govering body. What if they plunge the Middle east and perhaps the world into another war will because they cant stop having tantrums.

kyleb

Jul18-06, 10:56 AM

I think he just wanted more simple and direct source, such as this (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/11/bush.mideast/index.html):

President Bush said Monday that Israel must honor its commitment to halt the expansion of settlements on the West Bank after a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Gokul43201

Jul18-06, 11:01 AM

Israel right now is showing how utterly incompitant they truely are as a govering body. What if they plunge the Middle east and perhaps the world into another war will because they cant stop having tantrums.And on the other hand:

Lebanon, right now, is showing how utterly incompetent they truly are, as a govering body. What if they plunge the Middle East, and perhaps the world, into another war because they can't stop having terrorists dictate goverment policy?

MeJennifer

Jul18-06, 11:07 AM

Israel right now is showing how utterly incompitant they truely are as a govering body. What if they plunge the Middle east and perhaps the world into another war will because they cant stop having tantrums.
Well if the western world decides to get involved you cannot blame that on Israel. We in the west have the choice to get involved or not.
And as far as I am concerned we should not. Let them fight it out, what is it up to us?

Yonoz

Jul18-06, 11:32 AM

What if they plunge the Middle east and perhaps the world into another war will because they cant stop having tantrums.
Let me remind you: Israel has been out of Lebanon for 6 years now. The border is internationally recognised. The UN security council has decided Lebanon should deploy its military along the border and disarm Hizbullah. They have done nothing remotely nearing this. Instead, Hizbullah has appointed a minister in the Lebanese government and is allowed to freely arm itself and harrass Israel. Hizbullah has set up positions all along the border, they've set up an array of over 10000 rockets targeted at Israeli population centers, and have attacked Israeli civilians and forces on the Israeli side of the internationally recognised border many times since the pullout. Every time Israel has delicately responded in a very limited scope and all this ever achieved was more support for Hizbullah. This last conflict was sparked when Hizbullah fired a heavy barrage on Israeli civilian settlements and military posts and attacked a patrol, killing several soldiers and abducting two from Israeli soil.
This is no tantrum. Israel is exercising its right to defend its citizens and border, and it is doing so with the support of the international community. In the first 5 days of the conflict Israeli planes have flown over 1000 sorties, trying to destroy weapons hidden inside civilian populations. The Lebanese death toll is extremely low considering the magnitude and nature of this attack. Of course, Hizbullah supporters and personnel deaths are reported as civilian deaths to inflate this number. International media reports are hysterical and inaccurate - for example, last night Sky news actually had a caption that read "Israeli air raid on Haifa". Haifa is Israel's largest city with a large petrochemical industry that Hizbullah's been trying to hit with Iranian made 300 mm rockets over the last few days.
Furthermore, Israel is demanding that a neighbouring country deploy its military on their shared border (what a tantrum indeed). It's demanding that its soldiers that were kidnapped on a peaceful border patrol on its soil be returned. It's asking that Hizbullah be disarmed. This is what a responsible leadership is obligated to do to protect its citizens - and so far it's been doing it well.
Olmert has promised to pull out of the West Bank during this term. It's clearly one of Hizbullah's aims to stop this. Anyone concerned with peace in the Middle East and the rest of the world should be supporting Israel's stand in the face of extortion and terror.

Skyhunter

Jul18-06, 02:04 PM

When the militant wing of Hamas, with or without the consent of the ruling government tunneled under the border and captured an Israeli soldier, Israel bombed the electrical power plant that supplies 1 million plus innocent people. In the middle of summer in a desert. No more refrigeration, food spoils in a few days, no more water since it is supplied by electric pumps.

Is this responding in kind?

Israel rounds up Palestinians, keeps them in desert camps for 6 months without charges and lets most of them go without ever charging them, just like the U.S. in Guantanamo.

I don't agree with what Hamas or Hezbollah did, but to say Israel is within their rights to cut off the food and water to a million civilians is just plain wrong.

I believe Sharon would have negotiated. The current leaders, like our own, have no military background and are making catastrophic mistakes.

Office_Shredder

Jul18-06, 02:36 PM

Ok, skyhunter. Who should Israel have negotiated with? The people whose main tenant is "destroy Israel", or the people who fund them?

kyleb

Jul18-06, 03:05 PM

The people who just want to end the occupation and expansion.

Hurkyl

Jul18-06, 09:46 PM

he people who just want to end the occupation and expansion.
Which ones? The ones who want to end the occupation and expansion by eliminating Israel, or the ones who want to end the occupation and expansion by funding the ones who eliminate Israel?

kyleb

Jul18-06, 10:01 PM

The ones who know damn well that they don't have a chance in hell of eliminating Israel, yet are compelled to cling to that pipe dream though the continuing occupation and expansion onto Palestinian land.

Hurkyl

Jul18-06, 10:08 PM

pcorbett

Jul18-06, 10:17 PM

I have come to the conclusion that everyone in the Middle East, Palestinian and Israeli, is insane.

That may but for a bunch of crazies Israelis look and act a lot like the West.

kyleb

Jul18-06, 10:31 PM

Skyhunter

Jul18-06, 10:48 PM

Ok, skyhunter. Who should Israel have negotiated with? The people whose main tenant is "destroy Israel", or the people who fund them?Whomever was holding the captured soldier(s).

Office_Shredder

Jul18-06, 11:37 PM

Whomever was holding the captured soldier(s).

You'll notice that the ones who captured the soldiers demanded the release of hundreds of prisoners in return?

How is this negotiation?

And Israel couldn't even negotiate with the Palestinians who kidnapped a soldier, they could only talk to an intermediary who "represented" them (and by represented they meant had no clue where the soldier was, or if he was still alive. Good guy to work with)

pcorbett

Jul18-06, 11:40 PM

The people who just want to end the occupation and expansion.

What expansion? A quarter century ago Israel held the Sinai. In 2005 Israel left Gaza. Are you sure you don't mean "continue the contraction?"

Cyrus

Jul18-06, 11:49 PM

All you get in the media here is Palestinian Kids wearing camo and holding Ak-47's, funny you never see pictures of Israeli kids signing the bombs being fired, now do you?

Source and Picture: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/israel-bombarded-peres/2006/07/18/1153166347409.html

Sad, both sides teach their children to hate. :uhh:

I'm sure these pictures will catch on to the post later.

She did not even spell "whit love" correct...:rolleyes:

kyleb

Jul19-06, 12:17 AM

What expansion? A quarter century ago Israel held the Sinai. In 2005 Israel left Gaza. Are you sure you don't mean "continue the contraction?"
I am speaking with the respect to the fact that contraction in the areas you mention does nothing to negate the reality of continuing expansion and occupation in other areas.

Cyrus

Jul19-06, 12:42 AM

Here is another pic from the AP

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060717/481/6332a58d75a84b8a85f94f9f9b7ad29f

One kidnapped soldier and its time to bomb an entire country....:rolleyes:

Out of all that bombing, they manage to kill only 2 hezbollah and 250 civilians?

PATHETIC

Anttech

Jul19-06, 02:20 AM

Let me remind you: Israel has been out of Lebanon for 6 years now. The border is internationally recognised. The UN security council has decided Lebanon should deploy its military along the border and disarm Hizbullah. They have done nothing remotely nearing this. Instead, Hizbullah has appointed a minister in the Lebanese government and is allowed to freely arm itself and harrass Israel. Hizbullah has set up positions all along the border, they've set up an array of over 10000 rockets targeted at Israeli population centers, and have attacked Israeli civilians and forces on the Israeli side of the internationally recognised border many times since the pullout. Every time Israel has delicately responded in a very limited scope and all this ever achieved was more support for Hizbullah. This last conflict was sparked when Hizbullah fired a heavy barrage on Israeli civilian settlements and military posts and attacked a patrol, killing several soldiers and abducting two from Israeli soil.
This is no tantrum. Israel is exercising its right to defend its citizens and border, and it is doing so with the support of the international community. In the first 5 days of the conflict Israeli planes have flown over 1000 sorties, trying to destroy weapons hidden inside civilian populations. The Lebanese death toll is extremely low considering the magnitude and nature of this attack. Of course, Hizbullah supporters and personnel deaths are reported as civilian deaths to inflate this number. International media reports are hysterical and inaccurate - for example, last night Sky news actually had a caption that read "Israeli air raid on Haifa". Haifa is Israel's largest city with a large petrochemical industry that Hizbullah's been trying to hit with Iranian made 300 mm rockets over the last few days.
Furthermore, Israel is demanding that a neighbouring country deploy its military on their shared border (what a tantrum indeed). It's demanding that its soldiers that were kidnapped on a peaceful border patrol on its soil be returned. It's asking that Hizbullah be disarmed. This is what a responsible leadership is obligated to do to protect its citizens - and so far it's been doing it well.
Olmert has promised to pull out of the West Bank during this term. It's clearly one of Hizbullah's aims to stop this. Anyone concerned with peace in the Middle East and the rest of the world should be supporting Israel's stand in the face of extortion and terror.

Yonzo, you do NOT have the support of the international community, you may have support from some countries, USA being the biggest, but what your goverment is doing right now is being condoned everywhere. You cannot blame the Lebanaon goverment for Hezbullah, they are a weak goverment and are just trying to get on their feet after being "occupied" by Syria, your True enemy. Your actions are not helping one bit.

I just wonder where you get your information from? I didnt relise that the whole media world was lying about the deaths of civilians :rolleyes:

I highly doubt that "bombing the sh!t" out of Lebanaon is going to help, in fact it is making the situation worse.

Anttech

Jul19-06, 02:27 AM

So, you think that Israel can negotiate with the ones who know [bleep] that they don't have a chance [bleep] of eliminating Israel, yet are compelled to cling to that pipe dream though the continuing occupation and expansion onto Palestinian land?

What on earth are you talking about? You are it seems slanting your questions in a completely unreasonable way. Palastine has a goverment, a democraticaly elected goverment. Yes they have a miliary wing (But so did shin fayn) The Israeli goverment need to talk to these people! TALK, they also need to HELP Lebanaon's govement take control of their country not destablise them.

War certainly isnt the answer

kyleb

Jul19-06, 04:36 AM

War is our answer, as plainly stated in the article Cyrus linked (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/israel-bombarded-peres/2006/07/18/1153166347409.html):
Annan and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have urged the UN Security Council to deploy a security force in Lebanon but Israel says it is too early to discuss it and Washington has questioned how it could stop Hezbollah from attacking Israel.
Washington questions how a security force in Lebanon could stop Hezbollah from attacking Israel, while blatantly ignoring the fact that Israel's attacks are escalating Hezbollash responses. We don't want to work with the Lebanese people on this, we want this war.

Here is another pic from the AP

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060717/481/6332a58d75a84b8a85f94f9f9b7ad29f

That is some impressive photojournalism there, the gleam of hope in her eye is poignant beyond words.

Yonoz

Jul19-06, 05:42 AM

Yonzo, you do NOT have the support of the international community, you may have support from some countries, USA being the biggest, but what your goverment is doing right now is being condoned everywhere.Apart from UN Security Council resolution 1559, let's see what some world leaders are saying:Leaders of the Group of Eight industrialized powers meeting in Russia said on Sunday Israel had a right to self-defense, telling Hizbollah to free two captured Israeli soldiers and end attacks on Israel. They did not demand an immediate ceasefire.Saudi Arabia, with Jordan, Egypt and several Persian Gulf states, chastised Hezbollah for “unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts” at an emergency Arab League summit meeting in Cairo on Saturday.World leaders, including Arab ones, realise that Hizbullah is a destructive force that needs to be dealt with in some way.
You cannot blame the Lebanaon goverment for Hezbullah, they are a weak goverment and are just trying to get on their feet after being "occupied" by Syria, your True enemy. Your actions are not helping one bit.I beg to differ: Sa'ad a-din el-Hariri, leader of the majority in the Lebanese parliament, commented yesterday on foreign news channels "it's time Lebanese started taking care of themselves and not let others lead them to a crisis" - the Israel Foreign Ministry couldn't have phrased a better statement themselves. He also said "if anyone wants to start a war against Israel, let them start their own front, rather than incite people in Lebanon to fight against Israel, while they live in safety and stability". There is more talk of this kind in Lebanon, and hopefully they'll start acting on it.

I just wonder where you get your information from? I didnt relise that the whole media world was lying about the deaths of civilians :rolleyes:I live here, have spent quite a bit of my life in the midst of previous widely reported events. I've had regular contact with journalists and was once interviewed by the BBC though I don't think it was aired. My job in the reserve forces has mostly to do with exactly what is happening now. I've been involved in preparations for this conflict and I can assure you the current state of things fits our projections with near perfection.
I never said the "whole media world was lying" - perhaps you too should seek a journalistic career. I said they are reporting inaccurately and hysterically. Most of the time they simply "pass on" reports that aren't verified. I don't expect them to check on every casualty's background, but they should present the source of the information and let people know that they cannot distinguish between a Hizbullah operative/supporter and a civilian casualty.
Nasrallah has identified Israel's weak points and one of them is the harm caused by percieved attacks on civilians. This is partly why his entire organisation is dug deep into the civilian population in south Lebanon. It's one of the disadvantages of having a free press, and we should all be aware of it.

I highly doubt that "bombing the sh!t" out of Lebanaon is going to help, in fact it is making the situation worse.No one is "bombing the sh!t" out of Lebanon - though that's the impression you get watching foreign news channels. Since the Syrian occupation Hizbullah had cordoned off an entire suburb in Beirut - it's only that suburb that was bombed so extensively - the rest of Beirut is quite intact. Airport runways and bridges were bombed to contain the kidnapped soldiers and to harm Hizbullah's ability to control its rocket array. Trucks carrying weapons from Syria were bombed, Hizbullah reported they carried medicines. The majority of targets were civilian residences in which Hizbullah have hidden weapons. There's not much Israel can do to prove the legitimacy of 100's of such targets, especially when it involves top-secret sources.

Yonoz

Jul19-06, 05:54 AM

Palastine has a goverment, a democraticaly elected goverment. Yes they have a miliary wing (But so did shin fayn) The Israeli goverment need to talk to these people!Unfortunately, Hamas' ideology calls for the destruction of Israel. We've already gone through this with the PLO. No compromise is ever enough for someone whose core belief is the destruction of Israel. Every Israeli government since 1992 has negotiated with the Palestinians. Now the ball is in their court - if they truly want peace let them elect someone other than Hamas. In the meantime, Israel is doing what it can - it has already completely withdrawn from the Gaza strip and if all goes well we should be out of the West Bank before the next election.
TALK, they also need to HELP Lebanaon's govement take control of their country not destablise them.I'll repeat this again because apparently it isn't clear: Israel is demanding the Lebanese government deploy it's own military in South Lebanon. What more help do they need?! So far every time Hizbullah inflamed the situation Israel responded in a very restricted manner and all that got us was more support for Hizbullah.

War certainly isnt the answerI'm glad we agree on something.

kyleb

Jul19-06, 06:00 AM

If you agreed you wouldn't be supporting the continuing attacks but rather calling for an international security force to resolve the problem.

Yonoz

Jul19-06, 06:15 AM

Israel's attacks are escalating Hezbollash responses.I don't get this - Hizbullah attacked Israeli *civilians* on the Israeli side of the border for the umpteenth time since the pullout. Israel responds by attacking Hizbullah's weapons. Why are you saying Israel is escalating this? Is it acceptable for any country to have its civilians showered with rockets without removing the threat? Do you expect us to just lay down and die?
We don't want to work with the Lebanese people on this, we want this war.What a short memory span the west has. Since the pullout Hizbullah has repetitively performed quick attacks on Israel after which it just steps back and lets Israel play the responsible adult, relying on their formidable ability to bombard Israeli civilians to ensure Israel doesn't eliminate their threats. This has become a repetitive pattern. This campaign is meant to bring peace to the Israeli-Lebanese border - I don't see what other motive Israel could have. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

That is some impressive photojournalism there, the gleam of hope in her eye is poignant beyond words.I'm happy you're overjoyed to see such photographs. I wish yourself and cyrus would view the rivers of hate on the other side of the conflict with the same eyes. These children's homes have been shelled purposefully, and those artillery rounds are going to be fired to areas that are clear of civilians.
I hope you find it in your heart to forgive us for standing up to those killing our civilians.

Yonoz

Jul19-06, 06:19 AM

If you agreed you wouldn't be supporting the continuing attacks but rather calling for an international security force to resolve the problem.There is an international security force in Lebanon. It has done nothing but made it easier for Hizbullah to attack Israel. I wish I could show you a fraction of the aerial photographs I handled that show Hizbullah weapons caches and command posts enveloping UNIFIL bases. The 2000 abduction of Israeli soldiers happened right under the eyes of UNIFIL soldiers.

Anttech

Jul19-06, 06:33 AM

kidnapped soldiers Just one point, You dont Kidnap Soldiers you capture them. Although the American Media is presenting it as such it is inaccurate. A Soldier is captured, a civilian is kidnapped.

Anttech

Jul19-06, 06:36 AM

These children's homes have been shelled purposefully, and those artillery rounds are going to be fired to areas that are clear of civilians.
I hope you find it in your heart to forgive us for standing up to those killing our civilians.

Yer right! I suppose this is why, the UK govement et all are evacuating there nationals from Beriut? The reason why is that Isreal is punishing the whole of Lebenaon, just like they did with Gaza, and yes there is collateral damage Lots of it. Thier total lack of restraint is worrying.

Yonoz

Jul19-06, 06:38 AM

Just one point, You dont Kidnap Soldiers you capture them. Although the American Media is presenting it as such it is inaccurate. A Soldier is captured, a civilian is kidnapped.A soldier on a peaceful routine patrol, on its own country's soil, on an internationally recognised border, that did not fire one single shot, and is taken in a surprise attack meant for exactly that purpose of kidnapping Israeli troops - well, I'd call that a kidnapping. Soldiers are captured when they're fighting.

Yonoz

Jul19-06, 06:45 AM

Yer right! I suppose this is why, the UK govement et all are evacuating there nationals from Beriut? The reason why is that Isreal is punishing the whole of Lebenaon, just like they did with Gaza, and yes there is collateral damage Lots of it.Having answered your question, now it is my turn to ask: where do you get YOUR information from? Because it seems to me you're just making things up to fit your views.

Anttech

Jul19-06, 06:45 AM

I would hardly call Israel at peace. Even before this new escapade.

Anttech

Jul19-06, 06:46 AM

Yonoz

Jul19-06, 06:47 AM

I would hardly call Israel at peace. Even before this new escapade.That has nothing to do with the fact that the soldiers were kidnapped while on a peaceful patrol.

Yonoz

Jul19-06, 06:50 AM

http://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2276721,00.html

Take your pick

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2276721,00.html

This one is particualy good.I don't see anything in there that supports your claim Israel is punishing the whole of Lebanon. If anything, it shows Lebanese and Britons felt safe enough to watch the bombings:British officials say, however, that many might decide to hang on in Lebanon despite the Israeli air strikes that have killed some 280 people, most of the civilians.
BTW, the report quotes a woman saying powerplants were hit "one by one" but it fails to mention no powerplants were hit at all. Just an example for my comments about the international media.

Anttech

Jul19-06, 06:51 AM

Yes it does, you are ensinuating that the patrol was a "peaceful" one. It is like saying a Patrol in Bazra by the Brits is a peaceful one when nobody shoots at them. Israel is NOT at peace, so the patrol would not be a peaceful one.

They were Captured by an enemy of Israel, from within Israel's borders, by an extreem group of terrorists. NOT by the Lebeonese Army.

pcorbett

Jul19-06, 06:53 AM

I am speaking with the respect to the fact that contraction in the areas you mention does nothing to negate the reality of continuing expansion and occupation in other areas.

So don't you think you should share with us what areas you think Israel is expanding into?

Yonoz

Jul19-06, 06:58 AM

Yes it does, you are ensinuating that the patrol was a "peaceful" one. It is like saying a Patrol in Bazra by the Brits is a peaceful one when nobody shoots at them. Israel is NOT at peace, so the patrol would not be a peaceful one.The British in Bazra are a foreign force in a land in turmoil - how can you even compare the two? Then again it seems you too do not recognise Israel's right to exist.

They were Captured by an enemy of Israel, from within Israel's borders, by an extreem group of terrorists. NOT by the Lebeonese Army.That terrorist group is part of the Lebanese government. The UN security council resolution 1559 demands the Lebanese government deploy its military in south Lebanon and disarm Hizbullah. It has not done any of this, and it is absolutely obvious and accepted that the Lebanese government is accountable for the situation.

Anttech

Jul19-06, 06:58 AM

I don't see anything in there that supports your claim Israel is punishing the whole of Lebanon. If anything, it shows Lebanese and Britons felt safe enough to watch the bombings:
BTW, the report quotes a woman saying powerplants were hit "one by one" but it fails to mention no powerplants were hit at all. Just an example for my comments about the international media.

So bombing the Airports, and civilian infrastructure isnt hurting the ecconomy of Lebenon? 200 years backwards did I not hear quoted somewhere.

I am surpirsed that you seem to think that the eye witnesses where 'safe' and 'felt' safe enough to watch the destruction of Beruit!

Anttech

Jul19-06, 07:06 AM

The British in Bazra are a foreign force in a land in turmoil - how can you even compare the two? Then again it seems you too do not recognise Israel's right to exist.

That terrorist group is part of the Lebanese government. The UN security council resolution 1559 demands the Lebanese government deploy its military in south Lebanon and disarm Hizbullah. It has not done any of this, and it is absolutely obvious and accepted that the Lebanese government is accountable for the situation.

Why are you putting words into my mouth. I do recognise Isreal's right to exist, I never said anything to oppose that.

I DO NOT aggree with the Israel's tantrums and the direction they are taking this problem, they need to put thier teddies back in the pram and back off a bit.

However I do think that Hezbollha needs to be quashed. But I think the goverment of Israel's heavy handed approach (As usual it seems) just plays into the hands of these groups.

It may be accepted in Israel, that this is the work of the Lebanesse goverment, but not elsewhere.

Killing of civilians isnt acceptable, on both sides of the fence.

Yonoz

Jul19-06, 07:07 AM

So bombing the Airports, and civilian infrastructure isnt hurting the ecconomy of Lebenon?Just because it's hurting the Lebanese economy doesn't mean Israel is punishing the whole of Lebanon. There are other reasons for bombing infrastructure. Israel is also being harmed financially by this conflict.

I am surpirsed that you seem to think that the eye witnesses where 'safe' and 'felt' safe enough to watch the destruction of Beruit!Don't be surprised - read it for yourself:She said: "My concern was the children, they were watching the bombing from the apartment every night - the planes coming over, the bombs dropping and the airport blowing up.I suppose if her children were in danger she wouldn't just let them watch the bombing, would she?

Anttech

Jul19-06, 07:10 AM

Where on earth does it say: they felt safe? Why on earth did they leave and feel terrible about leaving loved ones?

Do you know how rediculus this sounds? The title of the article is:

'It's good to be safe' - evacuees describe Beirut bombing

maybe if you didnt relise they are saying its good to be safe, because they are now in cyprus!!!

I suppose if her children were in danger she wouldn't just let them watch the bombing, would she?:rofl: :rofl: what was she going to do? cover their eyes? perhaps put a blanket over their heads?

Yonoz

Jul19-06, 07:12 AM

However I do think that Hezbollha needs to be quashed. But I think the goverment of Israel's heavy handed approach (As usual it seems) just plays into the hands of these groups.What approach would you have taken?

It may be accepted in Israel, that this is the work of the Lebanesse goverment, but not elsewhere.That's funny because the Lebanese Parliament majority leader has said that it is the Lebanese government's work.

Killing of civilians isnt acceptable, on both sides of the fence.I agree.

Anttech

Jul19-06, 07:17 AM

What approach would you have taken?

Look, its your bed you lie in it! War isnt going to work, or do you think it has done so much for Israel in the past?

Israel needs to be seen as doing positive steps in the right direction, and needs to start making consesions. You need these people to like you, or at least tolerate your exsistance. If Palestine was a Happy and more affluent place to live, perhaps people would be less inclined to support extreemist to kill Israeli's. Bombing the Sh!t out of Lebenanon is just what terrorists need, it gives them more public support, and the circle of violence contiunes. Spread YOUR wealth and help these people, YOU stole their land, (with the help of some others it maybe added). They HATE you for this, you need to make them stop hating you! Having powerful friends may make it easy for you to stay in power, but it wont give your people a peace of mind from terrorism. A heavy hand has never worked with Terrorism (Look at Ireland for some examples).

Yonoz

Jul19-06, 07:18 AM

what was she going to do? cover their eyes? perhaps put a blanket over their heads?Just in case you ever have to experience what countless Israelis are experiencing right now: when in a house during a bombardment, the safest place to be (other than a shelter) is as far away from the external walls of the building as possible. So for the past few days Israelis living in the north have constantly been in shelters and rooms with no windows. Many only venture out for basic supplies. If that woman felt her children were in danger she would've taken them to a place safer than right next to the window or on the balcony.

Yonoz

Jul19-06, 07:35 AM

Look, its your bed you lie in it!Well now, it looks like you speak Israeli. I understand you also think Israel has no better choice.
War isnt going to work, or do you think it has done so much for Israel in the past?Do you know anything about Israel's history?
Israel needs to be seen as doing positive steps in the right direction, and needs to start making consesions.See that's the problem. No matter what Israel does, it's always seen in a bad light. You can look back to Gokul's post for a list of concessions by Israel.
You need these people to like you, or at least tolerate your exsistance.The problem is those people do not recognise our existence. What price does Israel have to pay for "these people" to "like" it? Would any nation compromise its own security to be "liked"?
If Palestine was a Happy and more affluent place to live, perhaps people would be less inclined to support extreemist to kill Israeli's.The Palestinians right after the Oslo accords were at the peak compared to any other time in their history. They chose to keep commiting acts of terrorism such as those that brought the Israeli public to elect the hardliner Netanyahu. What was that about sleeping in your own bed?
Bombing the Sh!t out of Lebenanon is just what terrorists need, it gives them more public support, and the circle of violence contiunes.We've discussed this, Israel has taken that route in the past - and guess what? The terrorists got more public support. The Lebanese government needs to understand Israel will not allow Hizbullah to keep attacking it.
Spread YOUR wealth and help these people, YOU stole their land, (with the help of some others it maybe added).What land? The border is internationally recognised, do I need to explain this again?
They HATE you for this, you need to make them stop hating you!The question you should be asking is why do they hate us?

Anttech

Jul19-06, 07:45 AM

The question you should be asking is why do they hate us?
You know the answer to that question:

Let me repeat myself:

You stole thier land! Would you like me to show you a map of Palestine, pre-Isreal http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/pre48maptoc.html? Was it an Organic transformation from Palestine to Isreal after WW2? Where all parties where happy? Untill you can admit to yourself the truth and more importantly your goverment there will never be any hope.

Yonoz

Jul19-06, 07:47 AM

You stole thier land! Would you like me to show you a map of Palestine, pre-Isreal http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/pre48maptoc.html? Was it an Organic transformation from Palestine to Isreal after WW2? Where all parties where happy? Untill you can admit to yourself the truth and more importantly your goverment there will never be any hope.So you do not recognise Israel's right to exist.

Office_Shredder

Jul19-06, 07:49 AM

Anntech, I wasn't aware that Palestine was a subsidiary of the Lebanese government.

Anttech

Jul19-06, 07:52 AM

Anttech

Jul19-06, 07:53 AM

Anntech, I wasn't aware that Palestine was a subsidiary of the Lebanese government.

I wasnt either. Thanks for that information :rolleyes:

Yonoz

Jul19-06, 08:03 AM

No... Yonoz get a grip stop twisting what I am saying. You own the land, you are the most powerful there, thus you have ownership. However that doesnt negate the fact that for the last time YOU STOLE THIER LAND. It happens everywhere all the time, The Brittish did it everywhere, including Ireland. But I recognise the right of the Northern Irelanders to choose if they want to be part of the UK or not. equally I recognise that Israel has the right to exsit. I am not going to say this again. I am TELLING you why these people HATE you! This is thier perception, you stole thier land, and they are in a bad way and want something better. They see you will SO much more money and wonder why they have to live like penned in Animals. So it becomes a breeding gorund for extreemist. You wont win this war with Force, you may win it with Kind.What do you mean when you say "you stole their land"? Before you answer that question, do yourself a favour, read a little about the UN partition plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan), war of independence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War) and the six-day war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War).
As I've said before, this has nothing to do with the Palestinian's financial state. They flourished under Israeli rule and then again after the Oslo accords. Still, they chose the path of violence.

Anttech

Jul19-06, 08:10 AM

So what do you think their perception is of what happened? Answer yourself this question and perhaps then we might be on the same page. This is symantics anyway, we have a difference in opinion as to what happened. BUT the perception of your enemies is the one you must look at, once you can stop them hating you for what happened, because they do, then you might be able to have peace.

OR do you not aggree? And tend to think you need to wipe out all the "terrorists" with an Iron fist, and force your enemies to love you!

Yonoz

Jul19-06, 08:12 AM

So what do you think their perception is of what happened? Answer yourself this question and perhaps then we might be on the same page. This is symantics anyway, we have a difference in opinion as to what happened. BUT the perception of your enemies is the one you must look at, once you can stop them hating you for what happened, because they do, then you might be able to have peace.I've come to the conclusion there's no way the current generation will stop hating Israel. I don't think there'll be peace here for at least 2 or 3 generations.

Anttech

Jul19-06, 08:21 AM

Humans have the ability of forgiving, and for healing emmotional wounds. Look at Europe, Germany (in the form of the Nazi's) Killed Many Many people, and many of your race. Yet we are now in a situation now where they are fully intergrated into the EU.

I think this had a LOT to do with the Marshal plan, something that the Americans got right. Israel needs to give back to its neighbours likewise. Really this is what I think, you can gain peace for the middle east with Kind, and less perceieved hypocracy (in the form of totaly unaquivilale support from the Americans (something they are getting wrong right now)).

My opinion --

russ_watters

Jul19-06, 09:27 AM

I think this had a LOT to do with the Marshal plan, something that the Americans got right. Israel needs to give back to its neighbours likewise. Really this is what I think, you can gain peace for the middle east with Kind, and less perceieved hypocracy (in the form of totaly unaquivilale support from the Americans (something they are getting wrong right now)).

My opinion -- Yes, the Marshall Plan is largely responsible for Germany and Japan being fully integrated into the world community today, but it required first the utter conquest and unconditional surrender of both. That situation does no exist in the ME, so there can't be a Marshall Plan for the countries surrounding Israel.

Gokul43201

Jul19-06, 09:43 AM

I am speaking with the respect to the fact that contraction in the areas you mention does nothing to negate the reality of continuing expansion and occupation in other areas.Is Israel bigger today than it was 5 years ago? 10 years ago?

I'm not being apologist for the illegal occupation they have engaged in, and I'm only half disappointed that the UN hardly holds their feet to the fire about it. I'm merely failing to inderstand your use of the word 'expansion'. To me, when something expands, it gets bigger.

russ_watters

Jul19-06, 11:25 AM

You stole thier land! That certainly is the perception, and Israel does recognize that they have to give at least some land back. They've already started to do that.

But right now, the only coherent solution to this problem offered by the Palestinians involves the Israeli people evaporating. They are not negotiating. If they want to continue that stance, then they will continue to have a solution imposed on them by force.

That is the reason the upper echelon of the world community almost universally supports Israel. Even Russia and China now. They recognize that only Israel is making an honest effort to resolve this conflict.

edit: Actually, there is another reason: Hezbollah (as always) is primarily targeting civlians. While the international community recognizes the toll being taken on the Lebanese, intential killing of civilians is murder and that makes Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

russ_watters

Jul19-06, 11:29 AM

Just one point, You dont Kidnap Soldiers you capture them. Although the American Media is presenting it as such it is inaccurate. A Soldier is captured, a civilian is kidnapped. Soldiers are captured in a battle. When you take someone for the purpose of holding them hostage for ransom, that is kidnapping, whether they are wearing a uniform or not.

But regardless of what you want to call it, these soldiers were not engaged in battle and now they are. Why? Because they were attacked. Hezbollah started the current conflict and the world community recognizes that.

kyleb

Jul19-06, 12:33 PM

I don't get this - Hizbullah attacked Israeli *civilians* on the Israeli side of the border for the umpteenth time since the pullout. Israel responds by attacking Hizbullah's weapons. Why are you saying Israel is escalating this?
How many Hizbullah attacks since Israeli started attacking compared to Hizbullah attacks in the same number of days before that? That is the escalation I am speaking of.
There is an international security force in Lebanon.
That gives reasonable grounds to put a more effective international security force in Lebanon, not to start a war.
So don't you think you should share with us what areas you think Israel is expanding into?
I have posted maps showing exactly that as well an article about Bush asking for the Israeli expansion to stop, I think you all should acknowledge those facts.
I'm merely failing to inderstand your use of the word 'expansion'.
The continuing building and extending of Israeli settlements within Palestinian land is the expansion I speak of.

Yonoz

Jul19-06, 05:25 PM

How many Hizbullah attacks since Israeli started attacking compared to Hizbullah attacks in the same number of days before that? That is the escalation I am speaking of.Here's a map of Hizbullah-hit population centres (http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/79/943223). Note it's only for Wednesday, you can use the link on the bottom left to see the previous days. Now imagine that was your country - would you do any calculation about your response?

Yonoz

Jul19-06, 05:27 PM

That gives reasonable grounds to put a more effective international security force in Lebanon, not to start a war.
I believe the proper expression is "get real".

Yonoz

Jul19-06, 05:29 PM

I hope this will end soon. IDF warplanes dropped 23 tonnes of bombs on a bunker that may have housed a Hizbullah leadership meeting.

kyleb

Jul19-06, 06:30 PM

Yonoz, could you please answer my question? How many Hizbullah attacks has there been since Israeli started attacking compared to Hizbullah attacks in the same number of days before that?

russ_watters

Jul19-06, 06:37 PM

Latest count is something like 900 rocket attacks in the past week and there was, of course, one incursion before Israel responded. What is your point? - that's how wars start, with a single act!

darius

Jul19-06, 06:48 PM

As I said, there seems no end to the conflict between these people. I propose that once the situation in Lebanon becomes a bit calm and peaceful, the world community boycott both Israelis and Palestinians and force them to come to terms on their own so that they learn to tolerate and make peace with each other and seeing that they are originally the same people or mutually self-destruct. This way the world can move on to more important issues such as overpopulation and the massive destruction of the environment.

kyleb

Jul19-06, 06:55 PM

Latest count is something like 900 rocket attacks in the past week and there was, of course, one incursion before Israel responded. What is your point? - that's how wars start, with a single act!
My point is, that is escalation.

SOS2008

Jul19-06, 07:01 PM

What kind of response did you expect?
BTW IMO it's the media that's over-reacting. I know there's a slim chance you'll believe me, but I'd like to mention that most of what I see on BBC and CNN is grossly inaccurate. You get the impression as if Beirut in its entirety is targetted, while only one neighbourhood is being bombarded and that after being showered with pamphlets asking civilians to get away several hours earlier. Of course, foreign reporters never go into that Hizbullah neighbourhood so they have no idea.As stated, Israel overreacted as usual, meaning I expect such action.

To begin, those who are either Jews or Arabs cannot be objective. I am neither a Jew or an Arab and strive to look at the matter without bias, thus taking neither side. One can debate the history endlessly with the only positive outcome possibly being that of understanding each side. But never does such debate culminate in solutions. So in regard to history I will briefly say that, in general, changes in borders--or in this case creating a new nation state will always result in conflict so I question the wisdom of creating Israel in the first place. But it has been done, and I wish the world could just move on in peace. And I say "the world" because unfortunately the entire world is dragged into this ongoing conflict.

My criticism is and always has been of U.S. foreign policy, and to remember to look at such crisis from the big picture point of view. First and foremost the hypocritical double-standard interference and meddling in the Middle East (which has included biased support of Israel) is at the root of the problems there. To expand further on my comments, more recent policies that grew from neoconservative think tanks has made matters even worse. Most notably that illegal regime change to remove Saddam has not resulted in more stability in the region (nor would this be the case in Syria, ahem), and U.S. (or Israeli) aggressiveness has only fuelled anti-west sentiment. With U.S. history and the recent invasion and occupation of Iraq, radical groups such as Hezbollah have gained strength (though I don't know what's worse--this or Americans apathy). Also, the theory that democracy would spread has proven to be a great disappointment. In regard to Lebanon, the so-called government barely exists even so shortly after recent elections.

Now there is no other option but to deal with groups like Hezbollah in a forceful way. And once again the world must fear escalation that could spread beyond a localized skirmish. Personally I suspect that's what a paranoid, hawkish Israel wants. Let's just hope the military action (or war?) remains localized. And let's hope people don't get too hung up on Iranian weapons. After all, it is the U.S. who sold the most arms to Iran in the first place.

What we need is for the U.S. to develop a real and meaningful foreign policy...for everyones sake, because it isn't all about you or them.

russ_watters

Jul19-06, 07:02 PM

You [kyleb] also said they should not have done it. Why? Why is violence an unreasonable reaction to violence from a group that wants you annihilated?

Cyrus

Jul19-06, 07:20 PM

SOS2008

Jul19-06, 07:24 PM

Violence begets violence (spiral escalation). It's better to take away their reason to be (anger), and replace it with hope for a better way of life.

kyleb

Jul19-06, 08:37 PM

Russ, I'm saying I don't see that other reasonable means had been exhausted, or even given a valid effort for that matter.

Office_Shredder

Jul19-06, 11:50 PM

So in regard to history I will briefly say that, in general, changes in borders--or in this case creating a new nation state will always result in conflict so I question the wisdom of creating Israel in the first place. But it has been done, and I wish the world could just move on in peace. And I say "the world" because unfortunately the entire world is dragged into this ongoing conflict

Because, it would totally be better if that land was still controlled by Great Britain. Palestine totally wouldn't be occupied or anything then.... oh, right.

Rach3

Jul20-06, 12:07 AM

This is interesting - Shimon Peres went on Larry King today and disputed the accepted Lebanese casualties:

PERES: No, no. We informed publicly, we told many of the Lebanese people who live among the terrorists, we told them either get rid of the missiles or leave your homes. We warned them and then we let everybody that wants to get out, we stopped the shooting and we let everybody go out. Nobody was hurt, by the way. And also, the numbers of the victims are not acceptable.

We think the information coming from Lebanon is totally unreliable, as their behavior is unacceptable. So we're not impressed by it. I know that every night our headquarters hits house and house to make sure that no civilian life will be hit, that no civilian infrastructure will be destroyed. We are not inconsiderated.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/19/lkl.01.html

What? "Nobody was hurt"?!

russ_watters

Jul20-06, 01:17 AM

Did those 250 Lebanese civilians want Israel annihilated? :confused:

I can understand a reaction against Hezbollah, but not against civilians. Only 2 hezbollah out of 250 civilians, no. Find an effective way of killing Hezbollah if that's your goal. I have no problem if you can do that. Setting aside that Lebanon isn't differentiating between civilian and Hezbollah deaths*, "Against civilians" implies you think Israel was intentionally targeting civilians. Do you?

*source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/20/mideast/index.html The Lebanese Internal Security Forces reported, however, that 216 people had been killed and 524 injured as of 8 p.m. (1 p.m. ET) Wednesday. Contrast that with Israel, which specifically lists them separately: With Wednesday's deaths, 29 Israelis -- 15 civilians and 14 soldiers -- have been killed in the weeklong fighting, according to the IDF. That's just one of the realities of dealing with a terrorist organization: it is virtually impossible to separate civilian and terrorist causalties because they go to great lengths to hide amongst civilians, which, of course, places the blame for the civilian deaths squarely on the shoulders of Hezbollah according to international law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield Human shield is a military term describing the presence of civilians in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets. It may also be used to describe the use of civilians to literally shield combatants during attacks, by forcing the civilians to march in front of the soldiers during human wave attacks. Using this technique increases the civilian casualty rate and is highly illegal in any nation that is party to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

russ_watters

Jul20-06, 01:18 AM

Violence begets violence (spiral escalation). It's better to take away their reason to be (anger), and replace it with hope for a better way of life. Worthless liberal B.S. rhetoric. Tell me: how did that work for dealing with Hitler?

When someone wants nothing less than your death, you have a simple choice: kill them or let them kill you.

If you disagree, explain how what you just said can actually be implimented. How exactly can Israel "take away their reason [for anger]" without committing mass suicide? What can they reasonably do? How can Israel provide hope? How does not punishing a criminal help ensure that criminal won't commit the same crime again?

russ_watters

Jul20-06, 01:22 AM

Russ, I'm saying I don't see that other reasonable means had been exhausted, or even given a valid effort for that matter. Well what is "other reasonable means" and what would constitute a "valid effort"? We can go around in circles forever with this (and with SOS too) - 'war is not the answer' is a slogan, not a means for achieving peace. It is easy to criticize, but you guys are not providing real solutions. If you can't think of a "reasonable means", perhaps that is because there isn't one?

Israel has tried things such as unilateral withdrawals from occupied territories and going to the bargaining table. The other side has not budged an inch from their stance of requiring Israel's annihilation. Which side is making a "reasonable" effort and which isn't?

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 01:50 AM

Yonoz, could you please answer my question? How many Hizbullah attacks has there been since Israeli started attacking compared to Hizbullah attacks in the same number of days before that?kyleb, it occurs to me you have no real grasp of the dynamics in this region. Here's an article to help you understand why Hizbullah is bad for the Middle East:
Weapons Found on 'Karine-A' and 'Santorini' (http://www.waronline.org/en/analysis/pal_weapons.htm)

Anttech

Jul20-06, 02:09 AM

Worthless liberal B.S. rhetoric. Tell me: how did that work for dealing with Hitler? Worthless liberal B.S. rhetoric???? Nice arguement Russ :)

Did you not already conceed that the marshal plan worked? Perhaps readup on your history. WW1 left germany in a bad way, the people got angry voted in a megalomanica FACIST and voila WW2 killing another 15 Million people. After WW2 YOUR goverment together with many others put the marshal plan into action, it created well being amount the Axis and no more war!

The Logic is really very straight forward.

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 02:12 AM

I can understand a reaction against Hezbollah, but not against civilians. Only 2 hezbollah out of 250 civilians, no. Find an effective way of killing Hezbollah if that's your goal. I have no problem if you can do that.No one can deliver an accurate picture of Hizbulla and civilian casualties at this point. There's really no way to distinguish a Hizbullah activist from a civilian. I suggest you wait until the conflict is over, which will hopefully be quite soon, before you pass judgement. In the meantime here's the latest video from the IDF (http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/../SIP_STORAGE/DOVER/files/4/54604.wmv). They have a briefing to the public every evening, in which they explain everything and show these videos. There's also my personal favourite (http://www1.idf.il/SIP_STORAGE/DOVER/files/5/54305.wmv).

Anttech

Jul20-06, 02:14 AM

kyleb, it occurs to me you have no real grasp of the dynamics in this region. Here's an article to help you understand why Hizbullah is bad for the Middle East:
Weapons Found on 'Karine-A' and 'Santorini' (http://www.waronline.org/en/analysis/pal_weapons.htm)

Hizbullah is bad for the region. But not Lebanon. If your govermenet bring down the goverment of Lebanenon you will land yourselfs in an even worse situation. The Vacum created by your disposing of a democratic goverment will be filled by Syria. Yes I aggree get rid of hezbullah, but not at any expense.

I was watching on the news last night (BBC) how many Trucks that have been destroyed now, even convoys of trucks by the Israeli's, the reason: Because they *May* have the ability to carry rockets??!!!???

Crazy, I hope israel's *daddy* the American Goverment will remove the carte blanche they have given Israel soon, before its too late.

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 02:25 AM

Hizbullah is bad for the region. But not Lebanon. If your govermenet bring down the goverment of Lebanenon you will land yourselfs in an even worse situation. The Vacum created by your disposing of a democratic goverment will be filled by Syria. Yes I aggree get rid of hezbullah.One of Israel's declared aims is to bring the Lebanese military to deploy in south Lebanon. The IDF keeps from attacking Lebanese military facilities unless they're involved in aiding Hizbullah, such as those naval radar installations. Mark my words: Lebanon's government, perhaps minus one Hizbullah minister, will emerge without a scratch.

Anttech

Jul20-06, 02:30 AM

I highly doubt that, unless YOU pay for the damage you have cause to their infrastructure. Which is not what is going to happen. Maybe they will still be in power, but like lame ducks, not powerful leadership which is what that country needs.

Tourism was on the up in Lebaneon, Hell I would have Loved to visit there. But after this no way. They have a fragile ecconomy and fragile goverment.

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 02:42 AM

I highly doubt that, unless YOU pay for the damage you have cause to their infrastructure. Which is not what is going to happen. Maybe they will still be in power, but like lame ducks, not powerful leadership which is what that country needs.On the contrary: the Lebanese government and people were at the hands of Hizbullah when this began. Hizbullah hijacked the Lebanese government's decision making. Hizbullah decided when Lebanon will be involved and to what extent in whatever conflict Hizbullah chose. Now that Hizbullah is "defanged", as someone put it, it can be just another normal political party.
Let's not forget another small historical tidbit: the Syrian occupation. I think as long as the Lebanese government acts in the best interest of its citizens it will remain intact.

Tourism was on the up in Lebaneon, Hell I would have Loved to visit there. But after this no way. They have a fragile ecconomy and fragile goverment.We have had 2 children killed here yesterday, and you're concerned with Lebanon's tourism?!

Anttech

Jul20-06, 03:15 AM

Yes I am!! why shouldnt I be?

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 03:27 AM

Yes I am!! why shouldnt I be?Because there will be no peace in the region if Hizbullah continue to harm Israeli civilians. If Hizbullah is not disarmed then there will be more attacks on Israeli civilians and more limited responses - so the tourism industry is the last thing you should be worried about.
BTW we also have a tourism industry. One of northern Israel's biggest industries is the tourism industry, financing hundreds if not thousands of families. Every time Hizbullah shells northern Israel, they lose their incomes. Never heard anyone outside Israel complain about that though.

Anttech

Jul20-06, 03:45 AM

Sure, I am not denying that fact. Tel Aviv looks like a nice place. Also being Greek I would like to go to jerusalem. But thats beside the point. Israel is far richer than Lebenon. And Yes I remember recent history, and if you topple the Lebonen goverment it will repeat its-self. Lebenon should and will be if left to its owe devices be a democratic secular state! Yonoz, Israel is destroying the fabric of the civilian infrastructure in Lebenon, it will take years to repair and hundereds of millions of Euros. The same cannot be said of israel. I feel sorry for your blight, but I truely think the "punishment" that is being given back to lebenon is totally disproportionate.

Anttech

Jul20-06, 04:06 AM

I want to add for better perceptive:

For the people who are reading this thinking that Lebenon is a "Muslim" country or a radical islamic state out to terrorise Israel because of this. You would be completely wrong. Lebenon is more or less half Islamic half Christian. There are many Millions of Christians, of Eastern Catholic, And Greek Orthodox living in what is an acient and beatiful place, much like Israel. People describe Lebenon as a mediteranian Country like the south of Italy, Greece, coast of Turkey. It has many classical ruins and warm and welcoming people, who are highly educated, and once apon a time where the bed rock of finance for the region.

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 04:10 AM

Lebenon should and will be if left to its owe devices be a democratic secular state!While a Lebanese terrorist coalition partner is killing Israeli civilians and kidnapping soldiers? What would Greece do if a Turkish party had its own private army and was shelling Greek towns and villages?
Yonoz, Israel is destroying the fabric of the civilian infrastructure in Lebenon, it will take years to repair and hundereds of millions of Euros.Bridges and runways are not "the fabric" of a civilian infrastructure. Power facilities, water pumps, dams, hospitals, police stations, government buildings - all these are left untouched. Don't fall prey to the now-tiresome hysteria.
The same cannot be said of israel.Israel is bombing buildings and bridges. Hizbulla are bombing civilians. Is there any realistic circumstance under which you would see Israeli action as acceptable?
Israel may not be harmed to the extent Lebanon is but no country should wait to be harmed before removing the threat. I'd like to remind you Hizbulla is doing its best to strike at Haifa's petrochemical industries. An unfortunate hit there could mean a regional disaster at a scale you do not wish to imagine.
I feel sorry for your blight, but I truely think the "punishment" that is being given back to lebenon is totally disproportionate.It seems to me you want to see Israel hurt badly before it does anything to protect itself. I hope you understand me when I say I'd rather Israel struck first and save itself being hurt.

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 04:14 AM

Anttech

Jul20-06, 04:20 AM

While a Lebanese terrorist coalition partner is killing Israeli civilians and kidnapping soldiers? What would Greece do if a Turkish party had its own private army and was shelling Greek towns and villages

You are confussing Hezbolah and Lebenon. This is a big problem, and is obfusing what is happening. Recently a Turkish fight jet shot down a greek fighter jet over greek airspace, the greek solider died! We didnt start shelling Istanbul. Anyway thats beside the point, its not Lebenon its Hezbolah that are doing this.

Israel is bombing buildings and bridges. Hizbulla are bombing civilians. Israel is bombing Trucks, roads, ports, airports bridges houses and civilians (unintentional or not they are doing it)

It seems to me you want to see Israel hurt badly before it does anything to protect itself.I dont think that killing of civilans and destroying the fabic of a country is "defending" its attacking. And the outcome can be much worse for the region when the smoke settles.

now-tiresome hysteria. No Hysteria here mate, just cold hard facts.

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 04:35 AM

You are confussing Hezbolah and Lebenon. This is a big problem, and is obfusing what is happening. Recently a Turkish fight jet shot down a greek fighter jet over greek airspace, the greek solider died! We didnt start shelling Istanbul. Anyway thats beside the point, its not Lebenon its Hezbolah that are doing this.Read what I have written again and tell me which part is untrue. Hizbullah is a terrorist organisation and a Lebanese coalition member.

Israel is bombing Trucks, roads, ports, airports bridges houses and civilians (unintentional or not they are doing it)Hardly the fabric of a civilian infrastructure. Houses are used to harbour weapons and Hizbullah facilities. I can think of no military that ever has had to deal with a remotely similar threat to its country's civilians and I think the IDF is doing a tremendous job so far. Just a reminder - over 1000 sorties in the first 4 days, more than 100 crafts over Lebanon at one point in time - hunting weapons hidden in population centres. Compare the casualties with any war in history (scaled to match) - I think you'll find they're among the lowest.

And the outcome can be much worse for the region when the smoke settles.I think otherwise. Even if it is, I think Israel has no choice.

No Hysteria here mate, just cold hard facts."Israel is destroying the fabric of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon" is not a fact - it's an assumption. I've shown facts that disprove this assumption - i.e. that power facilities, water supplies, government offices, police facilities, hospitals, food storage and more - that do compose the fabric of the civilian infrastructure - are unharmed.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul20-06, 05:08 AM

Israel is bombing buildings and bridges. Hizbulla are bombing civilians. Is there any realistic circumstance under which you would see Israeli action as acceptable?

Israel are bombing civillians and Hizbullah are bombing civillians, I don't think either side could killl more civillians if it started aiming for them deliberately. I would see a cease fire as acceptable, but the US does not, so now we're waiting fro the US to wave there magic wand and resolve the crisis.:wink:

Anttech

Jul20-06, 05:38 AM

I would see a cease fire as acceptable, but the US does not, so now we're waiting fro the US to wave there magic wand and resolve the crisis

yeap, wonder why they are not condemming anything ----hmmmm---- ohh yeah because of the Israeli lobbist in Washington

Astronuc

Jul20-06, 05:42 AM

Interesting perspectives on the current situation in the Middle East. Hizbullah is apparently flexing its muscle to get back into the 'game'. Syria and Iran are also trying to exert influence. Hmmm, it seems like the old days of the Assyrian, Persian and Babylonian empires when they all tried to control as much territory and trade as possible.

On Fresh Air with Terry Gross -

Islamic Conflicts and Their Impact on the Future
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5567840
Fresh Air from WHYY, July 19, 2006 · Middle East expert Vali Nasr talks about the latest developments there, and about his book The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future.

Understanding Hezbollah's Leadership and Mission
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5567843
Fresh Air from WHYY, July 19, 2006 · A few years ago, writer Jeffrey Goldberg spoke with Hezbollah leaders for a 2002 article in called "In the Party of God: Are Terrorists in Lebanon Preparing for a Larger War?" Goldberg will help us understand the background of the current unrest in Lebanon. Goldberg serves as Washington correspondent for The New Yorker.

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 05:44 AM

Israel are bombing civillians and Hizbullah are bombing civillians, I don't think either side could killl more civillians if it started aiming for them deliberately.I can't think of anything more untrue or insulting.

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 05:46 AM

yeap, wonder why they are not condemming anything ----hmmmm---- ohh yeah because of the Israeli lobbist in Washington...or because they know, like the rest of the world's leaders, that there's no place for an armed Hizbullah in Lebanon and the only way to solve this problem is to disarm them.
This is a classic Iranian tactic - making violations in small continuous doses and then stalling any effort to put an end to them by dead-end negotiations.

Anttech

Jul20-06, 05:51 AM

Hmmm, it seems like the old days of the Assyrian, Persian and Babylonian empires when they all tried to control as much territory and trade as possible.
Except they have bigger guns now!

Anttech

Jul20-06, 05:51 AM

...or because they know, like the rest of the world's leaders, that there's no place for an armed Hizbullah in Lebanon and the only way to solve this problem is to disarm them.

I aggree, but not on your goverments methods

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 05:58 AM

I aggree, but not on your goverments methodsCan you give, in fair detail, an alternative solution to the situation Israel has found itself in?

Anttech

Jul20-06, 06:01 AM

I am not going to repeat myself!

You already asked me this, and I already gave my oppinion. Shelling Beruit isnt the answer and its completely over the top, tantrum like behaviour. Just like bombing the Palestien power grid!

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 06:02 AM

Understanding Hezbollah's Leadership and Mission
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5567843
A very good interview, thanks.

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 06:20 AM

Islamic Conflicts and Their Impact on the Future
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5567840
Another great interview. I had a different impression of NPR from previous textual reports. Bravo Astronuc.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul20-06, 06:56 AM

I can't think of anything more untrue or insulting.

I'm confused when you bombed that airport what were the civillian casualties, 79 wasn't it, something like that? So what about israel bombing civillians is untrue? The fact is the major casualties of this war, are civillian, men, women and children, are you denying this? Perhaps I insulted the IDF by claiming they couldn't kill more civillians if they tried? I apologise I've obviously cast aspersions on their skills.

I watch the news every day and all I see is civillian casualties rising, are the lives of two soldiers recompensed by the lives of 300 dead civillians on both sides? Is this teaching Hezbollah that their methods wont work, or by pounding them are you mereley making there iron resolve into steel? Are all the other middle Eastern terrorist groups getting pissed with Israel, is their recruitment going to sky rocket, could fundementalist lunatics get any more partisan? What is it you are hoping to achieve here? You seem to have a habbit of moving into the Lebanon getting bitten and then retreating, is this all just a little bit of history repeating? If you withdraw this time it'll be the 4th time IIRC, perhaps you should consider doing it before more lives are lost? You made your point, how many more innocent people have to die?

I'm surprised actually I thought that post was more insulting to the US, but then I guess they are used to it:smile: :tongue2: .

Don't get me wrong I am impartial in this affair, I disagree equally with what both sides are doing and hope for peace. I personally find indiscriminately rocketing Israel to be cowardly and abhorrent, but this overkill startegy is lowering yourself to their level; it's hardly a way to garner favour with the rest of the world now is it? Personally I think this was a job for Mossad and special force units, not the IDF, a softly softly catchy monkey approach would have worked better IMO, at least it would have been more discriminate.

Gokul43201

Jul20-06, 07:16 AM

Hurkyl

Jul20-06, 08:19 AM

So what about israel bombing civillians is untrue?
The "Israel are bombing civilians" part. "Israel bombed civilians" is not a correct description of, say, "Israel bombed a military target, and there were civilian casualties". And even if it was a correct description, the connotation it carries is extremely misleading.

What is it you are hoping to achieve here?
I thought it was clear. The major goals are:
(1) Severely reduce Hezbollah's capabilities.
(2) Get the Lebanese government to take control of their country.

The "non-war" course had already failed to achieve either -- over the past 6 (?) years, Lebanon didn't take control of the area, Hezbollah kept getting stronger. This campaign will achieve (1) directly (and hopefully it will last for a while), and while (2) isn't guaranteed, it seems to me that this campaign will certainly help.

it's hardly a way to garner favour with the rest of the world now is it?
Serious question: do you think that "favour with the rest of the world" will stop terrorist attacks on Israel?

Did you not already conceed that the marshal plan worked? ... After WW2
After WW2 is a key point here. :wink:

Yes I aggree get rid of hezbullah, but not at any expense.
Okay... then at what expense?

I feel sorry for your blight, but I truely think the "punishment" that is being given back to lebenon is totally disproportionate.
Er, this is not a war to "hurt them as much as they've hurt me". And this comment is ridiculous, because even if that was what this war was about, I'm certain you still wouldn't accept it.

For the people who are reading this thinking that Lebenon is a "Muslim" country or a radical islamic state out to terrorise Israel because of this.
Are there people who think that?!?! Everything I've heard about this war has made a clear distinction between Hezbollah and Lebanon. Lebanon is only a problem in so far as they have not prevented Hezbollah from operating. In fact, your comments are the only ones I've seen that could possibly induce any confusion (since you seem to equate attacks against Hezbollah with bringing down the Lebanese government).

Cyrus

Jul20-06, 08:21 AM

I must say, I watched an interview with Nouhad Mahmoud, Foreign Ministry Representative, Lebanon. I think he's living in a delusional dream world the way he was answering questions....:rolleyes:

Anttech

Jul20-06, 08:35 AM

Are there people who think that?!?! Everything I've heard about this war has made a clear distinction between Hezbollah and Lebanon. Lebanon is only a problem in so far as they have not prevented Hezbollah from operating. In fact, your comments are the only ones I've seen that could possibly induce any confusion (since you seem to equate attacks against Hezbollah with bringing down the Lebanese government).
How on earth did you conclude that?

Target hit:
Convoys of civilian Trucks
Airport
Bridges
Roads
Civilian Buildings
Hezbollah hide outs

Yeh they are all run by hezbollah :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should speak to Israel then, because it is certain they are not making any distinction between Lebenon and Hezbollah

(2) Get the Lebanese government to take control of their country.
What a joke. Can you explain to me how shelling the capital city of Lebenon is going to enforce the control of the Lebenon goverment? its destablising it not allowing them more control.

After WW2 is a key point here.
So? What is your point?

Er, this is not a war to "hurt them as much as they've hurt me". And this comment is ridiculous, because even if that was what this war was about, I'm certain you still wouldn't accept it.No its a tantrum ... A lashing out at Lebenon with the hope of killing a few terrorists

In fact, your comments are the only ones I've seen that could possibly induce any confusion Yeeehh :rolleyes: I guess the reason you concluded that was because I have clearly described the demography of Lebenon, and have been arguing that the Israeli's need to stop bombing all the free citizans of Lebenon and destroying a wonderful country? They need to Start negotiating with Hezbollah and allowing the International peacekeepers in.

If only Big Brother -- Bush would allow that!

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 08:56 AM

I'm confused when you bombed that airport what were the civillian casualties, 79 wasn't it, something like that?Not one person was harmed in the airport raid.
So what about israel bombing civillians is untrue?If you mean it does so on purpose - then it's untrue.
The fact is the major casualties of this war, are civillian, men, women and children, are you denying this?I'm saying there's no way to distinguish Hizbullah from civilian casualties, and that it's too soon to know any real figures.
Perhaps I insulted the IDF by claiming they couldn't kill more civillians if they tried? I apologise I've obviously cast aspersions on their skills.You insulted me when you said Israel couldn't kill more civilians if it did so deliberately, implying that Israelis are heartless killers. You should keep such comments to yourself.

I watch the news every day and all I see is civillian casualties rising, are the lives of two soldiers recompensed by the lives of 300 dead civillians on both sides?First, you should watch the news with more criticism. They are, after all, in the business of selling news. Lives cannot be "recompensed", don't think you're the only one with a moral conscience.
Is this teaching Hezbollah that their methods wont work, or by pounding them are you mereley making there iron resolve into steel?It's not just teaching Hizbullah their methods won't work, it's protecting our civilians and that's what governments are meant to do. I suggest you listen to the second interview Astronuc posted, it presents the situation rather well.
Are all the other middle Eastern terrorist groups getting pissed with Israel, is their recruitment going to sky rocket, could fundementalist lunatics get any more partisan?They might, but that would have occured anyway the minute Hizbullah attacked that patrol amidst shelling settlements. We've tried appeasement, we've pulled out of Lebanon - look where it got us.
What is it you are hoping to achieve here?Safety for Israel's civilians.
You seem to have a habbit of moving into the Lebanon getting bitten and then retreating, is this all just a little bit of history repeating?That's only happened once - I wouldn't call that a habbit. This time there's no major incursions into Lebanon, just a demolition of Hizbullah's posts on the border, and special operations.
If you withdraw this time it'll be the 4th time IIRC, perhaps you should consider doing it before more lives are lost?Withdraw from where? You seem to be badly misinformed, why don't you study the situation a little more before you make war crime accusations.
You made your point, how many more innocent people have to die?I don't think Israel's point was made, Hizbullah is still firing on Israeli civilians.

Don't get me wrong I am impartial in this affair, I disagree equally with what both sides are doing and hope for peace. I personally find indiscriminately rocketing Israel to be cowardly and abhorrent, but this overkill startegy is lowering yourself to their level; it's hardly a way to garner favour with the rest of the world now is it?Seems you're not impartial calling this an overkill. We've tried garnering favour enough, Israeli society is at a consensus that nothing we ever do will be enough for the rest of the world.
Personally I think this was a job for Mossad and special force units, not the IDF, a softly softly catchy monkey approach would have worked better IMO, at least it would have been more discriminate.It's not like we've been sitting on our asses all this time. Every bomb delivered requires years of intelligence gathering, and we couldn't just go and attack every house storing weapons in Lebanon, there were well over 12000 rockets there.

vanesch

Jul20-06, 09:23 AM

Can you give, in fair detail, an alternative solution to the situation Israel has found itself in?

I think it became a "law of nature" now. Israel will always be doing this, as long as it exists, and will always be attacked by terrorists, as long as it exists.
This is now based upon ~50 years of data taking, without any empirical failure has been observed to this law.

Accumulated terrorist attacks on Israel induce responses by the IDF into their neighbour's territory, lots of casualties, etc... which then induces sympathy for the terrorist organisations, support, money, arms, recruites, ... and the cycle starts over again. How do you see any end to this ? Even if you destroy Hezbollah, another organization will take over.

So I guess we simply should get used to it.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul20-06, 09:48 AM

Safety for Israel's civilians.

You will fail though, that's the problem the more people you kill the more hatred you stir up and the more terror attacks you will suffer in the future, Whilst I think you can't gain peace in the middle East at the moment, resolving the palestinian issue is not going to come from war, nor is this issue nor are any issues, throwing fire at terrorism just makes it burn brighter? Do people not get this yet?

And Israel has made more than just 1 incursion into the Lebanon, I suggest you study the history from 1920 onwards before you point out that I have not done any reading, well we have heard that 67 people died in the airport attack, it was during the day when the airport would have been busy right? And no one died, I suggest you treat your own news with more discrimination too.

Nothing is being achieved hear and none of those goals that have been outlined on this thread will be achieved, I hope I'm wrong but I doubt it. The Lebanese government is not going to do anything about hezbollah and terrorism is merely going to grow from this war. Kill one terrorist and three replace him.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul20-06, 09:51 AM

I think it became a "law of nature" now. Israel will always be doing this, as long as it exists, and will always be attacked by terrorists, as long as it exists.
This is now based upon ~50 years of data taking, without any empirical failure has been observed to this law.

Accumulated terrorist attacks on Israel induce responses by the IDF into their neighbour's territory, lots of casualties, etc... which then induces sympathy for the terrorist organisations, support, money, arms, recruites, ... and the cycle starts over again. How do you see any end to this ? Even if you destroy Hezbollah, another organization will take over.

So I guess we simply should get used to it.

That's because you can't see peace as a viable option. Now or in the future. It has come close but no one has ever tried it, but of course it can't work? Why is this?

vanesch

Jul20-06, 10:04 AM

That's because you can't see peace as a viable option.

*I* see peace of course as a viable option, but they don't !

Over the last 50 years, several strategies have been tried, agreements have been made, battles have been fought, bombs have been placed, countries have been invaded, civilians have been killed, withdrawals have been executed, prisoners have been released, secret actions have been performed...

and nothing has really changed.

kyleb

Jul20-06, 10:25 AM

Well what is "other reasonable means" and what would constitute a "valid effort"? We can go around in circles forever with this (and with SOS too) - 'war is not the answer' is a slogan, not a means for achieving peace. It is easy to criticize, but you guys are not providing real solutions. If you can't think of a "reasonable means", perhaps that is because there isn't one?

Israel has tried things such as unilateral withdrawals from occupied territories and going to the bargaining table. The other side has not budged an inch from their stance of requiring Israel's annihilation. Which side is making a "reasonable" effort and which isn't?
Let us not go around in any circles here, please tell me your own opinion; what reasonable means did Israel peruse to clear the boarder of Hezbollah prior to the attacks?

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 10:27 AM

You will fail though, that's the problem the more people you kill the more hatred you stir up and the more terror attacks you will suffer in the future, Whilst I think you can't gain peace in the middle East at the moment, resolving the palestinian issue is not going to come from war, nor is this issue nor are any issues, throwing fire at terrorism just makes it burn brighter? Do people not get this yet?Let's go through this one more time - this has little to do with the Palestinians. It is on a grander scale than the Palelstinian-Israeli conflict. This is a proxy war by Iran, the Palestinian issue is simply very convenient for them. Israel pulled out of Lebanon 6 years ago and Hizbulla is attacking Israeli civilians from Lebanese territory. Please be more accurate.

And Israel has made more than just 1 incursion into the Lebanon, I suggest you study the history from 1920 onwards before you point out that I have not done any reading, well we have heard that 67 people died in the airport attack, it was during the day when the airport would have been busy right? And no one died, I suggest you treat your own news with more discrimination too.Israel was only formed in 1948. The only incursion apart from the Lebanese war was the Litany operation in 1978 in which Israel was not "bitten" but actually met little resistance since the PLO forces retreated beyond the operation's scope. Again, no one was hurt in the attack on the airport. Funny how your initial I'm confused when you bombed that airport what were the civillian casualties, 79 wasn't it, something like that?has turned into well we have heard that 67 people died in the airport attack, it was during the day when the airport would have been busy right? And no one died

Nothing is being achieved hear and none of those goals that have been outlined on this thread will be achieved, I hope I'm wrong but I doubt it.Let's wait until this is over instead of just speculating.
The Lebanese government is not going to do anything about hezbollah and terrorism is merely going to grow from this war. Kill one terrorist and three replace him.It appears they are going to do something, as PM Siniora himself said Hizbullah will be disarmed and his military will deploy in south Lebanon.

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 10:29 AM

Let us not go around in any circles here, please tell me your own opinion; what reasonable means did Israel peruse to clear the boarder of Hezbollah prior to the attacks?Repeated calls to the Lebanese government and the UN, meetings with UNIFIL officials, supersonic booms over major cities and limited strikes against Syrian targets.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul20-06, 10:33 AM

*I* see peace of course as a viable option, but they don't !

Over the last 50 years, several strategies have been tried, agreements have been made, battles have been fought, bombs have been placed, countries have been invaded, civilians have been killed, withdrawals have been executed, prisoners have been released, secret actions have been performed...

and nothing has really changed.

But to say peace will never work is hypothesis, since it has never been tried how can you make this assumption without evidence? I think you should of said with the current situation you can't see a solution, but things change so to make that concrete assumption is meaningless in the context of your lifetime or your childrens, or their children's children, you have no idea what may happen two hundred years down the line.

Both sides have been guilty of stalling peace processes and wasting time, I did think Israel had the moral high ground for a while and thought it was genuinely trying to work towards peace but then it voted in Sharon, things deteriorated and this lead in part to Hamas being voted in, responding to hard line with hard line. I think the middle east needs moderates on all sides, people willing to work towards compromise, not their own advantage but mutual advantage, but I sense this will be a long process and little will be achieved by stirring up hatred on either side, Israel is never going to quell terrorism and the Arabs are never going to see Israel toppled, so what do you do when you have an unwinnable situation? lose gracefully, and that goes for all the involved sides.

kyleb

Jul20-06, 10:40 AM

Washington questions how a security force in Lebanon could stop Hezbollah from attacking Israel, while blatantly ignoring the fact that Israel's attacks are escalating Hezbollash responses.
I don't get this - Hizbullah attacked Israeli *civilians* on the Israeli side of the border for the umpteenth time since the pullout. Israel responds by attacking Hizbullah's weapons. Why are you saying Israel is escalating this?
How many Hizbullah attacks since Israeli started attacking compared to Hizbullah attacks in the same number of days before that? That is the escalation I am speaking of.
Here's a map of Hizbullah-hit population centres (http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/79/943223). Note it's only for Wednesday, you can use the link on the bottom left to see the previous days. Now imagine that was your country - would you do any calculation about your response?
Yonoz, could you please answer my question? How many Hizbullah attacks has there been since Israeli started attacking compared to Hizbullah attacks in the same number of days before that?
kyleb, it occurs to me you have no real grasp of the dynamics in this region. Here's an article to help you understand why Hizbullah is bad for the Middle East:
Weapons Found on 'Karine-A' and 'Santorini' (http://www.waronline.org/en/analysis/pal_weapons.htm)

With that can we get it to occur to you that you are dodging my question and hence ignoring my point? You ask me "Why are you saying Israel is escalating this?" If you'd answer my question instead of accusing me of not understanding something that I most certainly do understand, then you would have the answer to your question.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul20-06, 10:41 AM

Let's go through this one more time - this has little to do with the Palestinians. It is on a grander scale than the Palelstinian-Israeli conflict. This is a proxy war by Iran, the Palestinian issue is simply very convenient for them. Israel pulled out of Lebanon 6 years ago and Hizbulla is attacking Israeli civilians from Lebanese territory. Please be more accurate.

Israel was only formed in 1948. The only incursion apart from the Lebanese war was the Litany operation in 1978 in which Israel was not "bitten" but actually met little resistance since the PLO forces retreated beyond the operation's scope. Again, no one was hurt in the attack on the airport. Funny how your initial has turned into

Let's wait until this is over instead of just speculating.
It appears they are going to do something, as PM Siniora himself said Hizbullah will be disarmed and his military will deploy in south Lebanon.

Yonez can you provide links that this is Iran pulling the strings? People voice this opinion but they have no proof and frankly it's tiresome conspiracy theory at its worst, yes they do suppley Hezbolah with guns etc, but Syria has the control over this organisation, and pointing the finger at Iran is meaningless without something concrete.

So you meet my speculation with speculation? It appears we agree to differ, just because people don't have a state doesn't mean they aren't capable of war, You'd think you of all people would realise this
I think you are in for a long an arduous process that will ultimately be unsatisfying, you think you can win this, all we can do is wait and see.

kyleb

Jul20-06, 10:56 AM

Repeated calls to the Lebanese government and the UN, meetings with UNIFIL officials, supersonic booms over major cities and limited strikes against Syrian targets.
Lebanese government can barely keep themselves together, let alone are they in any position to remove a Hezbollah from the boader, and supersonic booms are strikes on Syria obviously aren't any way to get Hezbollah off the boarder either. Working UN and UNIFIL officals can be helpful though, when and what exactly was the last time Israel made a valid effort to resolve the problem of Hezbollah that way?

Let's go through this one more time - this has little to do with the Palestinians. It is on a grander scale than the Palelstinian-Israeli conflict. This is a proxy war by Iran, the Palestinian issue is simply very convenient for them. Israel pulled out of Lebanon 6 years ago and Hizbulla is attacking Israeli civilians from Lebanese territory. Please be more accurate.
Please stop disregarding the Palestinian land's religious significance to the Muslim world.

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 11:03 AM

But to say peace will never work is hyptohesis, since it has never been tried how can you make this assumption without evidence?Again, refer to Gokul's list of major Israeli concessions.
I think you should of said with the current situation you can't see a solution, but things change so to make that concrete assumption is meaningless in the context of your lifetime or your childrens, or their children's children, you have no idea what may happen two hundred years down the line.That's why I think it will be at least 2 or 3 generations before peace comes to the region.

Both sides have been guilty of stalling peace processes and wasting time, I did think Israel had the moral high ground for a while and thought it was genuinely trying to work towards peace but then it voted in Sharon, things deteriorated and this lead in part to Hamas being voted in, responding to hard line with hard line.You're forgetting the mass of suicide bombings before that. If you examine the situation you'll find that after the Oslo accords the first violence was entirely Palestinian, but that's for another thread...
I think the middle east needs moderates on all sides, people willing to work towards compromise, not their own advantage but mutual advantage, but I sense this will be a long process and little will be achieved by stirring up hatred on either side, Israel is never going to quell terrorism and the Arabs are never going to see Israel toppled, so what do you do when you have an unwinnable situation? lose gracefully, and that goes for all the involved sides.I've been involved in peace movements for quite a few years. There are many Israelis doing a lot to end this. But we see very little action on the other side. These days it's a little different, it seems everyone's disillusioned and has given up on true peace, but around about the time surrounding the Oslo accords Israelis were really acting on the prospect of peace with the Palestinians.

kyleb

Jul20-06, 11:09 AM

Israel has never shown ready to fully remove presence from inside Palestine's boarders.

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 11:12 AM

Yonez can you provide links that this is Iran pulling the strings? People voice this opinion but they have no proof and frankly it's tiresome conspiracy theory at its worst, yes they do suppley Hezbolah with guns etc, but Syria has the control over this organisation, and pointing the finger at Iran is meaningless without something concrete.Hizbullah was founded by Iran, it's funded by it, they supply them with weapons, their ideology is based on Khoumeini's and they're trained by Iranian revolutionary guard. Do your own research, I've already asked you to listen to the NPR shows before you bring any more silliness into this discussion. It's all there.

So you meet my speculation with speculation?Nope, like I said, listen to the recording. They're quite open about it.
It appears we agree to differ, just because people don't have a state doesn't mean they aren't capable of war, You'd think you of all people would realise thisAre we talking about war or incursions? What I said remains true nevertheless.
I think you are in for a long an arduous process that will ultimately be unsatisfying, you think you can win this, all we can do is wait and see.That's exactly what myself, and the rest of Israel's citizens are doing. We'll wait, united, as long as it takes.

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 11:17 AM

Lebanese government can barely keep themselves together, let alone are they in any position to remove a Hezbollah from the boaderI beg to differ. They have a full fledged military. They can ask for help from other nations. They can stop Hizbullah's buildup or at least curb it. They have done nothing and that is why Israel has no choice but to do it itself.
supersonic booms are strikes on Syria obviously aren't any way to get Hezbollah off the boarder either.duh.
Working UN and UNIFIL officals can be helpful though, when and what exactly was the last time Israel made a valid effort to resolve the problem of Hezbollah that way?It's done routinely every time there's the smallest incident. Why do you think it can be helpful? All it's done is create hiding places for Hizbullah weapons.

Please stop disregarding the Palestinian land's religious significance to the Muslim world.I'm not. Are you justifying Hizbullah's attacks?

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 11:21 AM

Israel has never shown ready to fully remove presence from inside Palestine's boarders.What do you call Palestine's borders? If you think the Israeli actions in Lebanon are excessive, what do you think about the Muslim world's behaviour towards Israel? Would you call it proportionate? Why is it when Kurds, Shiites, Sunnys, Assyrians are killed by other Arabs it goes unnoticed and when a Jewish state defends itself it's the root of all evil the modern world?

vanesch

Jul20-06, 11:37 AM

But to say peace will never work is hypothesis, since it has never been tried how can you make this assumption without evidence?

Well, you can only look at the dynamics and extrapolate from that. 50 years of terrorism, 50 years of Israel dancing back and fro between pulling back and hitting hard, lot's of "attempts to peace", and lots of shattered agreements. Evidence enough. Why would it change now all of a sudden?

It becomes part of the tradition and culture there.

you have no idea what may happen two hundred years down the line.

True. Maybe Israel won't exist anymore, or maybe there will have been a major conflict in the area which completely changed all the cards, or maybe humanity will not be here anymore (or at least not in its present form). But as long as Arab nations exist in more or less their present form, and Israel exists, this will go on and on.

Both sides have been guilty of stalling peace processes and wasting time, I did think Israel had the moral high ground for a while and thought it was genuinely trying to work towards peace but then it voted in Sharon, things deteriorated and this lead in part to Hamas being voted in, responding to hard line with hard line.

Yes, but that's just part of the entire dynamics. You cannot expect Israel to sit on its *** for 15 years while its citizens are being terrorized. You cannot expect large populations in Arab countries who have a distilled hate against Israel (for many reasons, cultural, religious, historical, vendetta-like revenge for family victims,...) not in one way or another to refrain from giving birth to terrorist groups (and their popular support) to go and terrorize Iraeli population. So I don't see how this infernal cycle can ever come to a halt.

I think the middle east needs moderates on all sides, people willing to work towards compromise, not their own advantage but mutual advantage, but I sense this will be a long process and little will be achieved by stirring up hatred on either side, Israel is never going to quell terrorism and the Arabs are never going to see Israel toppled, so what do you do when you have an unwinnable situation? lose gracefully, and that goes for all the involved sides.

What does that mean, lose gracefully ? For the Israelis, just sit on their *** while bombs go off and cities are under rocket fire ? For how many years ? Without voting in for a hardliner who promises to hit back ?
And for Arabs, to change the mind of their populations, against all the grieves they have for a multitude of reasons, so that not one single terrorist comes out of it ?

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 11:39 AM

Well put vanesch.

MeJennifer

Jul20-06, 11:40 AM

a Jewish state
Perhaps that is the problem the Arabs have with Israel.

Why do you call it a Jewish state? What about all those people who live in Israel who are not Jewish? To build a state on some religion/ethnicity/race (pick your choice or a combination of those) is just asking for trouble IMHO.

What about the apartheid in Israel? What about the "problem" some Israeli's see in non-Jews becoming a majority? What about the disrespect for Palestinians, bulldozing the homes of families, closing schools so that children cannot get education, bombing power stations so that civilians cannot get electricity. When you treat people like monsters they will become monsters to you!

When nations are built on race, ethnicity or religion you can expect that those who don't "belong" see it as a problem.

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 12:15 PM

Perhaps that is the problem the Arabs have with Israel.

Why do you call it a Jewish state? What about all those people who live in Israel who are not Jewish? To build a state on some religion/ethnicity/race (pick your choice or a combination of those) is just asking for trouble IMHO.We're sorry we've set up our own state. I guess we should've stayed in the diaspora and emancipated or better yet, let ourselves die in pogroms and holocausts. How egotistical of us.

What about the apartheid in Israel? What about the "problem" some Israeli's see in non-Jews becoming a majority?There's no apartheid here. I don't think a black person headed the interior ministry during the apartheid. I don't think there were black parties in the parliament during the apartheid. I'm quite sure there were no black people in the security forces or in the government during the apartheid. I don't think there were equal rights and quotas for black people to be admitted to universities during the apartheid. I don't think there was a black autonomy whose inhabitants elected their own parliament, government, president, had their own armed security forces and had those forces fight the apartheid government. What on earth are you talking about?!

When nations are built on race, ethnicity or religion you can expect that those who don't "belong" see it as a problem.Please do not condescend me. You are in no position to judge us. What are you - christian, muslim, hindu, shintu, buddhist? All these religions and many others have their own place they can call "home". A place where they can be sure no one will ever persecute them because of their religion. Try living in a foreign land for a part of your life. Now imagine there's nowhere you do not feel foreign. Every nation needs a national home. Israel is the only national home Jews have ever had. The rest of the world has realised Israel has a basic right of existence. This does not simply mean the existence of a state named Israel, but the existence of such a state as a home for Jews. It's time the Muslim world accepted that.
It's funny how the very sons and daughters of imperialist nations that once raped entire continents are imposing their ivory tower "morals" on the one nation that has known no peace for 3000 years.

kyleb

Jul20-06, 12:21 PM

Lebanese government can barely keep themselves together
I beg to differ. They have a full fledged military. They can ask for help from other nations. They can stop Hizbullah's buildup or at least curb it. They have done nothing and that is why Israel has no choice but to do it itself.
Israel had the choice to ask for help too.

and supersonic booms are strikes on Syria obviously aren't any way to get Hezbollah off the boarder either.
duh.
I'm glad to see you admit that those were just strawmen in your list.

Working UN and UNIFIL officals can be helpful though, when and what exactly was the last time Israel made a valid effort to resolve the problem of Hezbollah that way?
It's done routinely every time there's the smallest incident. Why do you think it can be helpful? All it's done is create hiding places for Hizbullah weapons.
Now specificly, when and what was the last valid effort Israel made to resolve the problem of Hezbollah by working with UN or UNIFIL officals?

Let's go through this one more time - this has little to do with the Palestinians. It is on a grander scale than the Palelstinian-Israeli conflict. This is a proxy war by Iran, the Palestinian issue is simply very convenient for them. Israel pulled out of Lebanon 6 years ago and Hizbulla is attacking Israeli civilians from Lebanese territory. Please be more accurate.

Please stop disregarding the Palestinian land's religious significance to the Muslim world.
I'm not. Are you justifying Hizbullah's attacks?
No, I'm explaining the strong relationship the whole Muslim world has with the Palelstinian-Israeli conflict.

russ_watters

Jul20-06, 12:24 PM

Did you not already conceed that the marshal plan worked? Perhaps readup on your history. Perhaps you could reread my post.... The Marshall plan required the conquering and unconditional surrender of Japan and Germany before it could begin. WW1 left germany in a bad way, the people got angry voted in a megalomanica FACIST and voila WW2 killing another 15 Million people. After WW2 YOUR goverment together with many others put the marshal plan into action, it created well being amount the Axis and no more war!

The Logic is really very straight forward. Yes, the logic is straightforward -its the situation (the premise) that is different. You can't have a Marshall Plan until you conquer the country that you are going to impliment it in.

russ_watters

Jul20-06, 12:27 PM

Let us not go around in any circles here, please tell me your own opinion; what reasonable means did Israel peruse to clear the boarder of Hezbollah prior to the attacks? I thought it was clear that my opinion is that there is no reasonable means besides force. You, not me, are the one claiming a reasonable means exists and so it is up to you to argue that point. You're trying to get me to argue your point for you! :rofl: :rolleyes:

russ_watters

Jul20-06, 12:35 PM

But to say peace will never work is hypothesis, since it has never been tried how can you make this assumption without evidence? I'll say it again: 'give peace a chance' is a slogan, not a course of action. You can't try peace, it either exists or it doesn't. What you can do is try courses of action that can lead to peace. And these courses of action can involve force of arms or diplomacy. So what you are really asking is why doesn't Israel try a nonmilitary course of action?

The answer is, Israel has, tried both military and diplomatic courses of action in attempts to achieve peace. All attempts have failed.

The PA/Hamas/Hezbolla have never tried a non-military course of action aimed at achieving peace. And yes, I recognize that they have sat at bargaining tables before and that there have been truces, but truces are temporary stops of fighting (not peace) and the position taken at the bargaining table has always included the distruction of Israel.

kyleb

Jul20-06, 12:47 PM

Israel has never shown ready to fully remove presence from inside Palestine's boarders.
What do you call Palestine's borders? If you think the Israeli actions in Lebanon are excessive, what do you think about the Muslim world's behaviour towards Israel? Would you call it proportionate? Why is it when Kurds, Shiites, Sunnys, Assyrians are killed by other Arabs it goes unnoticed and when a Jewish state defends itself it's the root of all evil the modern world?
What do you think of when you hear someone speak of Palestine's borders, surely you must have a reasonable answer for that question yourself?

russ_watters

Jul20-06, 12:51 PM

Israel has never shown ready to fully remove presence from inside Palestine's boarders. Besides not being a sentence, that is so vague as to be meaningless. Since the borders themselves are in dispute and the most coherent thing the PA and Arab countries say is Israel needs to disappear entirely, Israel can't say it will "fully remove presence" unless everyone in the country decides to commit mass suicide. But Israel has stated that they are willing to withdraw to some negotiated position. They've even gone to the spectacularly unique step of unilaterally withdrawing from some occupied territories.

And the Arabs have not even said they will agree to any peace.

We keep getting back to that: you guys say Israel needs to do more. More is arguable, but what you like to ignore is that the PA/Arabs has/have done nothing.

russ_watters

Jul20-06, 01:00 PM

This is what coherent peace plans look like: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-05-25-peace-points_x.htm Please notice step 1: Phase One: Begins with statements by both sides renouncing violence and affirming the right of the other side to a state. And therein lies the reason 'peace never gets a chance'. Quite simply, only one side is willing to accept it. The other refuses to renounce violence.

kyleb

Jul20-06, 01:02 PM

So Russ, specificly, what do you think of when you hear someone speak of Palestine's borders? I can provide a map for you to mark your opinion on if need be.

devious_

Jul20-06, 01:08 PM

We keep getting back to that: you guys say Israel needs to do more. More is arguable, but what you like to ignore is that the PA/Arabs has/have done nothing.
That's quite a statement.

By the way, you seem to really enjoy using bold to emphasise your points. I've noticed this in all your posts. I don't want to attack you personally, but it's very annoying.

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 02:04 PM

Israel had the choice to ask for help too.Whome?

I'm glad to see you admit that those were just strawmen in your list.As far as I'm concerned they're all strawmen. They're strawmen because the only way Israeli civilians are safe is if our own government takes care of that.

Now specificly, when and what was the last valid effort Israel made to resolve the problem of Hezbollah by working with UN or UNIFIL officals?Stop stalling.Prior to the hostilities of July 2006, Israel had been lobbying for UNIFIL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIFIL#Debate_over_UNIFIL_presence) to either take a more active role vis-a-vis Hezbollah (for example, preventing Hezbollah from setting up military posts adjacent to UNIFIL's in the hope this will deter Israel from attacking them), or to step out of the region (thereby voiding the Lebanese government's excuse for not deploying its army along the border)A further relevant issue arises from the fact that both Lebanon and Israel have been actively keeping the Council (http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/site/c.glKWLeMTIsG/b.1313235/k.DAAD/January_2006BRLebanonIsrael_UNIFIL.htm) apprised of incidents across the Blue Line. The incidents are not insubstantial.

No, I'm explaining the strong relationship the whole Muslim world has with the Palelstinian-Israeli conflict.So regardless of the undeniable realities, does Israel's occupation of the west bank justify Hizbullah's attack?

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 02:06 PM

What do you think of when you hear someone speak of Palestine's borders, surely you must have a reasonable answer for that question yourself?There never existed a country called Palestine so I really don't know what borders it would have. I consider the "green line" to be a fair settlement.

kyleb

Jul20-06, 02:16 PM

I thought it was clear that my opinion is that there is no reasonable means besides force. You, not me, are the one claiming a reasonable means exists and so it is up to you to argue that point. You're trying to get me to argue your point for you! :rofl: :rolleyes:
I asked Yonoz for clarification on his claim that Israel pursued reasonable means prior to this attack, and you took issue with my request. I'm not asking you to argue for my point but rather your contest gave me the misunderstanding that you were backing Yonoz's argument, I apologize for my confusion there.

SOS2008

Jul20-06, 02:35 PM

Worthless liberal B.S. rhetoric. Tell me: how did that work for dealing with Hitler?

When someone wants nothing less than your death, you have a simple choice: kill them or let them kill you.

If you disagree, explain how what you just said can actually be implimented. How exactly can Israel "take away their reason [for anger]" without committing mass suicide? What can they reasonably do? How can Israel provide hope? How does not punishing a criminal help ensure that criminal won't commit the same crime again?Of course you would see positive idealism as liberal BS. If you read everything I stated, I said that now Hezbollah must be dealt with via force (as well as other rogue militias in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), just as Hitler had to AFTER years of neglect--or in this case poor policies. Nonetheless, it is never too late to begin efforts toward real change, and I was not referring to just Israel but primarily to U.S. foreign policy, which should show leadership in an international effort and preferably without Christian bias--for a change. Please don't twist my words.

kyleb

Jul20-06, 02:43 PM

Whome?

As far as I'm concerned they're all strawmen. They're strawmen because the only way Israeli civilians are safe is if our own government takes care of that.

Stop stalling.
That Wiki article you quoted doesn't list a date or much of any detail at all. I asked for specificly, when and what did Israel last pursue as a reasonable means to remove Hezbollah prior to this attack; am I to take your response here to mean you do not have an answer for my question?

So regardless of the undeniable realities, does Israel's occupation of the west bank justify Hizbullah's attack?
No, and neither does Hezbollah's attack justify Israel's response.

There never existed a country called Palestine so I really don't know what borders it would have. I consider the "green line" to be a fair settlement.
I consider that fair as well, but I have yet to see Israel offer that much.

Skyhunter

Jul20-06, 03:01 PM

Anttech

Jul20-06, 04:06 PM

UN are claiming, that 1/3 of all casualties are children in Beruit. I'll find a source, I just heard this on the News. Absolutley disgusting!

Hurkyl

Jul20-06, 04:54 PM

How on earth did you conclude that?
Well, I first heard what they said. I then processed the words to extract meaning, and then I analyzed the meaning to extract an impression of what was said. (All automatically, of course)

Aside from your comments, none of what I heard left me with the impression that they were confusing Hezbollah with Lebanon, so therefore I concluded that they're making a clear distinction.

So, since I've heard nothing in the media that confuses Lebanon with Hezbollah, it surprised me that there might be people here who cannot make the distinction.

As to the point you didn't bother actually making:
Target hit:
Convoys of civilian Trucks
Airport
Bridges
Roads
Civilian Buildings
Hezbollah hide outs

Since you seem not to be aware of such things...

When in a military conflict, it is a standard objective to disrupt the transportation network your enemy is using.

And Hezbollah is accused both of caching weapons in civilian buildings, and firing weapons from the same.

So, everything you listed would, in fact, be a natural target for a war against Hezbollah.

Even if you are right, and Israel does not distinguish between Lebanon and Hezbollah, the quoted list is not proof.

What a joke. Can you explain to me how shelling the capital city of Lebenon is going to enforce the control of the Lebenon goverment?
I'll assume you meant:

"Can you explain to me how shelling the capital city of Lebanon will help the Lebanese government gain control?"

Well, there's an obvious factor in favor of it -- the weaker Hezbollah is, the easier it will be for Lebanon to exert control over them. And there's another one -- the more damage Hezbollah causes by provoking wars with Israel, the more pressure Lebanon will feel to stop Hezbollah.

There are, of course, factors working against it. Which will win out is yet to be seen.

But frankly, since Israel is specifically aiming at Hezbollah targets, I find it difficult to believe that Lebanon will be weakened more than Hezbollah will.

I guess the reason you concluded that was because
Nope. In fact, I gave the reason I concluded that in my parenthetical. I thought it was clear what the parenthetical was describing; my mistake.

UN are claiming, that 1/3 of all casualties are children in Beruit. I'll find a source, I just heard this on the News. Absolutley disgusting!
No, the (alledged) fact is not disgusting on its own. Something you are inferring from it is what you find disgusting.

(At least... I hope you haven't been tricked into believing the fact itself is disgusting)

SOS2008

Jul20-06, 05:40 PM

The reason that the US has not led an effort to end the conflict, is because Rove did a poll of the fundamentalist base and discovered that they want to see Armageddon soon, so they can get on with the rapture. :rofl:

Seriously though, I don't see this ending until Israel is satisfied that Hezbollah is disarmed.

I hope it is soon before other nations get involved.Hezbollah is just a current symptom of an ongoing problem. To find a long-term solution, we need to be honest and reasonable about a few things.

First we need to examine why groups like Hezbollah emerge and gain popularity. I believe it is not so simple to just say they want to annihilate Israel. It's much deeper than that. As I said, take away the reason to be (anger, frustration, humiliation, etc.) that has resulted from unbalanced, even racist treatment by the U.S. and Israel. This is due in large part to cultural and religious affinity between the U.S. and Israel. It not only is wrong, it is not logical.

Aside from a powerful Jewish constituency in the U.S., many people like my youngest brother are Christians who believe in the prophecies of the Last Days, and like him most such believers also are neocon Republicans. My brother has argued that he supports Israel over Arab countries because Israel not only is a trusted ally in the region, but most importantly is a democracy. Let's not forget that Arab nations have been and are allies too, and I find it interesting to watch conservatives struggle with the hole in the neocon theory regarding democracy. With the election and declaration of Lebanon as a democracy, they now must show support for a government that includes members of Hamas (oops). And I don't know about the rest of you, but personally I would prefer that U.S. foreign policy not be based on the Rapture and that it was just a laughing matter. I'll bet you the Israelis who are accepting donations for the rebuilding of the Temple Mount think it's ridiculous, but why ruin a good thing?

If people want to be so simplistic or irrational, why not suggest that we just nuke them all (probably what Bush really believes)? We need to be preemptive in our policies, not military might if we want groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Mehdi army, Ansar al-Islam, etc. in Iraq, and of course Al-Qaeda to permanently disappear. As I said, Hezbollah is just another radical militia that is a current symptom of a larger, ongoing problem.

Anttech

Jul20-06, 05:45 PM

But frankly, since Israel is specifically aiming at Hezbollah targets, I find it difficult to believe that Lebanon will be weakened more than Hezbollah will.

Israel's intelgence isnt all its cracked up to be, many inccocent lifes have been lost and (for the unpteenth time) the infrastructure of Lebenon is being targeted which is crippling the country and thus the goverment.

I'll assume you meant:

"Can you explain to me how shelling the capital city of Lebanon will help the Lebanese government gain control?"

Well, there's an obvious factor in favor of it -- the weaker Hezbollah is, the easier it will be for Lebanon to exert control over them. And there's another one -- the more damage Hezbollah causes by provoking wars with Israel, the more pressure Lebanon will feel to stop Hezbollah.

Sorry, but destroying the fabric of Lebenon ,which is what is happening, is not going to strengthen the goverment, its a rediculas statement.

No, the (alledged) fact is not disgusting on its own. Something you are inferring from it is what you find disgusting.

The fact is disgusting what ever I am or I am not inferring is irrelevent.

(At least... I hope you haven't been tricked into believing the fact itself is disgusting)
:confused: was this another high brow joke, like your introductory statement in your last post?

Anttech

Jul20-06, 05:54 PM

Israel may get there charged for war crimes when this is all over:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5197544.stm

Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians... Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable

"I do believe that on the basis of evidence that is available in the public domain there are very serious concerns that the level of civilian casualties, the indiscriminate shelling of cities and so on, on their face raise sufficient questions that I think one must issue a sobering signal to those who are behind these initiatives to examine very closely their personal exposure," she told the BBC.

selfAdjoint

Jul20-06, 05:55 PM

First we need to examine why groups like Hezbollah emerge and gain popularity. I believe it is not so simple to just say they want to annihilate Israel. It's much deeper than that. As I said, take away the reason to be (anger, frustration, humiliation, etc.) that has resulted from unbalanced, even racist treatment by the U.S. and Israel. This is due in large part to cultural and religious affinity between the U.S. and Israel. It not only is wrong, it is not logical.

I can't really buy that. Hezbollah are Shiites and clients of Iran. Whatever rational issues Iran may have had over Mossadegh and the Shah
are way in the past, and we are their Great Satan just because we're us. LIkewise the Lebanon Shiites are not reacting to anything current, it's just a tradition that formed decades ago and is very carefully taught to young people. Evil Israel and evil US.

I don't think Israel is evil for defending its existence. This saturation attack on the part of Lebanon close to the border sounds like preparation for an invasion. If so, I for one would be hard put to criticze; unlike the US with Iraq, they have neen attacked from that precise location.

Cyrus

Jul20-06, 06:01 PM

Whatever rational issues Iran may have had over Mossadegh and the Shah
are way in the past, and we are their Great Satan just because we're us.

It's not because of who we are, it's because of what we have done to them. That's another thread entirely though :wink:.

Anttech

Jul20-06, 06:02 PM

I dont have a problem with Israel going for hezbollah. What I have a problem with is that they are completely tearing Lebenon apart! Or as Lebanon PM put it "Lebanon has been torn to shreds".

whats happening is completely disproportionate, Even Annan thinks this and Said it! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5199088.stm

Have you seen some of the pictures of beruit? And Hezbollah are unscaved!

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 06:04 PM

That Wiki article you quoted doesn't list a date or much of any detail at all. I asked for specificly, when and what did Israel last pursue as a reasonable means to remove Hezbollah prior to this attack; am I to take your response here to mean you do not have an answer for my question?Is the security council report not enough for you?

No, and neither does Hezbollah's attack justify Israel's response.So Israel has no right to defend its civilians against Hizbullah shelling and to prevent kidnapped Israeli soldiers from being moved to Syria or Iran?

I consider that fair as well, but I have yet to see Israel offer that much.That's why it's called negotiations... If there was a sincere response from the Palestinians, most Israelis would support such a concession.

Anttech

Jul20-06, 06:08 PM

So Israel has no right to defend its civilians against Hizbullah shelling and to prevent kidnapped Israeli soldiers from being moved to Syria or Iran?Yes it absolutly does have the right to defend itself, but not by crippling Lebanon, and killing civilans. Its gone way beyond and anti-terrorism opperation now.

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 06:09 PM

Yonoz

Jul20-06, 06:17 PM

Yes it absolutly does have the right to defend itself, but not by crippling Lebanon, and killing civilans. Its gone way beyond and anti-terrorism opperation now.You keep making these accusations but you've yet to support any of them. Israel is not targetting civilians or the Lebanese infrastructure.

Astronuc

Jul20-06, 06:38 PM

First we need to examine why groups like Hezbollah emerge and gain popularity. Post 208 on page 14, one will find two links looking at the current situation with Hizbullah.

The US has had an effect of destabilizing the ME - and certainly the policies of the Bush administration have been misguided, incompetent, . . .

Many in the ME see Israel as a proxy for the US, which is just not the case, but Israel certainly gets significant support from the US.

The big issue for Hizbullah is that they backed Syria's occupation of Lebanon and when Syria left, they lost face. Furthermore, the Shiia population is under-represented in the Lebanese government. So the way to regain popularity and flex it's muscle is for Hizbullah to attack Israel, which is what Hizbullah has done. BTW, it was an 'unprovoked' attack.

Israel cannot negotiate with Hizbullah, because there is no good faith on the side of Hizbullah.

As for Israel's response, they really don't have much of choice. Perhaps they need to be more careful, but they are not doing what any other major power has been doing recently - US in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Russia in Chechnya (Putin's comment about Israel over-reaction is absurd and hypocritical - Israel's response in Lebanon is much more restrained than the Russian response in Chechnya).

Over the years, Israel has offered reasonable terms to the Palestinian, but Arafat has sabotaged the process. The current Palestinian Government didn't have chance to do anything constructive by the time Hamas members were elected to the government. The biggest problem for the Palestinians has been the corruption of Arafat's government.

The main fault of Israel has been the settlements in the West Bank.

As for the security wall - that would be entirely unnecessary if it wasn't for the suicide bombers and the complicity of the Palestinian government in allowing terrorists to operate in the territories.

Rach3

Jul20-06, 06:56 PM

You keep making these accusations but you've yet to support any of them. Israel is not targetting civilians or the Lebanese infrastructure.

Of course they're targeting infrastructure! Bombed roads, bombed bridges, bombed airports, a total blockade - that's "infrastrcture" in my dictionary, and it's causing a humanitarian crisis (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/218615/115341364889.htm). Obviously IDF does not target civilians directly (unlike Hizbollah), that's almost tautological.

ukmicky

Jul20-06, 07:01 PM

Israel may get there charged for war crimes when this is all over:
No they won’t. this is a war so

1. They can’t be charged as long as the action was taken because they honestly believe they are targeting Hezbollah or
2 if steps are taken to prevent the injury or death of the innocent civilian population in the area they are targeting.

Israel is not indiscriminately attacking civilian areas or buildings they are attacking known targets and so if a bomb hits a building and due to collateral damage a civilian is injured or killed then under international law Israel have no case to answer.

Also bearing in mind the second point above Israel are actually dropping leaflets in the areas they are going to attack warning the civilian population of the action they are about to take telling them what they are going to bomb and advising them to leave until the bombing is over .So if they don’t leave (I would wouldn’t you )then its not Israel fault under international law if they are killed , As they say what other country in the world has ever dropped leaflets warning the residents good or bad that they are about to be bombed so get out.

Also the other problem is that Hezbollah are being allowed to masquerade as civilians by the locals in the areas they are organising their attacks from, so what is Israel supposed to do not bomb something that is responsible for killing their civilians because theirs no way to prove that the people they've bombed are Hezbollah and not civilians, its a case of if i allow someone to organise the death of someone else from my house then i'm just as guilty.

I’m sorry but anyone who lives next to a building which is part of an organisation attacking another country and you know that the chances are that it’s going to be bombed and you don’t leave even after reading a leaflet warning you that it is going to be bombed then they deserve what they get.

IT’S SOUNDS NASTY BUT IT’S TRUE

Astronuc

Jul20-06, 07:16 PM

The Marshall plan required the conquering and unconditional surrender of Japan and Germany before it could begin. Sort of.

. . . . You can't have a Marshall Plan until you conquer the country that you are going to impliment it in. Not quite. The US did not conquer (of course, it did invade most of them to drive out the German invaders) most of the countries invovled in the Marshall plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
The Marshall Plan, known officially following its enactment as the European Recovery Program (ERP), was the primary plan of the United States for rebuilding the allied countries of Europe and repelling communism after World War II. The initiative was named for United States Secretary of State George Marshall and was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan.

The reconstruction plan was developed at a meeting of the participating European states in July 1947.

. . . .

Truman signed the Marshall Plan into law on April 3, 1948, establishing the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA) to administer the program. ECA was headed by economic cooperation administrator Paul G. Hoffman. In the same year, the participating countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, West Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States) signed an accord establishing a master coordinating agency, the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (later called the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD), which was headed by Frenchman Robert Marjolin.

The Marshall plan not only involved Germany and Japan, but effectively all of Europe.

Certainly the Marshall plan required an end to the War. One cannot do much economic development while people are blowing up the infrastructure and killing one another.

On the other hand, a Marshall type plan could have been initiated before war, before Hitler came to power, or just after WWI, or before WWI, but the US was not as strong as it was after WWII. And besides, the US was grabbing territory in the Pacific and Central/South America itself. :rolleyes:

Sound economic trade and trade policies are among the requirements for global stability, in addition to non-corrupt governments among others. Unfortunately, history has demonstrated that has not been the case, and hence the mess we have now.

SOS2008

Jul20-06, 07:48 PM

Post 208 on page 14, one will find two links looking at the current situation with Hizbullah.

The US has had an effect of destabilizing the ME - and certainly the policies of the Bush administration have been misguided, incompetent, . . .

Many in the ME see Israel as a proxy for the US, which is just not the case, but Israel certainly gets significant support from the US.

The big issue for Hizbullah is that they backed Syria's occupation of Lebanon and when Syria left, they lost face. Furthermore, the Shiia population is under-represented in the Lebanese government. So the way to regain popularity and flex it's muscle is for Hizbullah to attack Israel, which is what Hizbullah has done. BTW, it was an 'unprovoked' attack.

Israel cannot negotiate with Hizbullah, because there is no good faith on the side of Hizbullah.

As for Israel's response, they really don't have much of choice. Perhaps they need to be more careful, but they are not doing what any other major power has been doing recently - US in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Russia in Chechnya (Putin's comment about Israel over-reaction is absurd and hypocritical - Israel's response in Lebanon is much more restrained than the Russian response in Chechnya).

Over the years, Israel has offered reasonable terms to the Palestinian, but Arafat has sabotaged the process. The current Palestinian Government didn't have chance to do anything constructive by the time Hamas members were elected to the government. The biggest problem for the Palestinians has been the corruption of Arafat's government.

The main fault of Israel has been the settlements in the West Bank.

As for the security wall - that would be entirely unnecessary if it wasn't for the suicide bombers and the complicity of the Palestinian government in allowing terrorists to operate in the territories.By no means am I defending Hezbollah and certainly not attacks that are unprovoked. I agree Israel like any sovereign nation has a right to self defense, but they could have responded in a way less likely to escalate into a wider conflict. Both sides have agendas that are questionable and likely detrimental to the entire world, which is weary of it.

And I agree with much of what you've posted except the comment about reasonable terms and Arafat. I consider Jimmy Carter to be someone well versed in Mideast affairs, and he himself said that had Arafat agreed to the terms, which were not reasonable, Arafat would have been assassinated. But dwelling on this kind of history only gets in the way of finding solutions for the Mideast.

So I would like to redirect my post to the matter of groups such as Hezbollah, and why such groups emerge and are able to gain popularity. The point about corruption is a good point, and a problem particularly in the third world, but it is everywhere on some level, even the U.S. What is fuelling the hatred? Just internal Arab affairs, or generations of propaganda? That plays a part, but that doesn't explain all of it.

The U.S. has had a negative effect in many countries all around the world in an attempt to control local politics for self-serving reasons. In the case of the Mideast there is oil of course, but there also has been growing racism against Arabs and Islam in America. I don't listen to NPR to know this, and it's much more mainstream then racism against Jews has ever been. And all you have to do is look at UN resolutions to see consistent U.S. bias in favor of Israel. Would this upset you if you were Arab? I think it would. The insurgents in Iraq did not emerge and/or gain power until after the U.S. illegally invaded the country. If a more powerful country did that to us, would we like it? I don't think so.

I'm not saying Syria or Iran or what ever is pure as the driven snow. I'm saying we need to do some analytical, objective thinking of how to really improve things. Just arguing about a current sympton gets nowhere.

Hurkyl

Jul20-06, 10:24 PM

the infrastructure of Lebenon is being targeted which is crippling the country
Crippling?!?! Countries have undergone years of carpet bombing, and still emerged to be powerful countries. I think Lebanon can survive a week or so of tactical and strategic bombing.

The fact is disgusting what ever I am or I am not inferring is irrelevent.
...
was this another high brow joke, like your introductory statement in your last post?
No. It's my perception that you've been suckered. You thought things were bad before, then someone invoked the word "children", and suddenly you think things are even worse!

The simple fact that there are civilian casualties suggests that there are children dying. If the report said that a mere 1%, or a whopping 75% of the casualties were children, that would be surprising. But that "1/3 of all casualties are children" is roughly what you should have already been imagining.

So, the statement "1/3 of all casualties are children" contains essentially no content, so it's not really meant to inform. It's meant to remind you that children are dying, thus evoking an emotional response. A classic appeal to emotion.

IIRC, I know that you find any number of civilian casualties, be it one or one million, is unacceptable. I know you find the situation disgusting -- but I very strongly suspect it's the mere fact that there are civilian casualties is what you find disgusting... that those casualties involve children is just a red herring.

kyleb

Jul20-06, 11:06 PM

Is the security council report not enough for you?
I asked for your explanation of when and what Israel most recently did to pursue as a reasonable means to remove Hezbollah prior to this attack, "the security council report" isn't an answer at all. Calling for a security force strong enough to acomplish the goal would be, but did Israel ever try that?

So Israel has no right to defend its civilians against Hizbullah shelling and to prevent kidnapped Israeli soldiers from being moved to Syria or Iran?
Israel has a responsibility to defend it's civilians and that is why it should have called for a security force strong enough to remove Hezbollah's presence form the boarder long ago. Calling on international help to secure the routes to Iran would have been well with within Israel's rights as well, but blowing up whatever you think you need to most certainly is not Israel's or anyone else's right.

That's why it's called negotiations... If there was a sincere response from the Palestinians, most Israelis would support such a concession.
A sincere response requires a fair offer, and like you said the green line would be a fair offer; but you can't expect a sincere response when you haven't made a fair offer.

clj4

Jul21-06, 01:15 AM

"The soldiers need to be returned." - Bush

What about the 10,000 Arab prisoners, including Palestinian officials, held by Israel?

You mean the arrested terrorists?

clj4

Jul21-06, 01:18 AM

Most certainly some of them were.

The Palestinian raid that produced the initial kidnapping was motivated at least partially by recent incidents in which Israelis killed Palestinian civilians.

You lie.

Palestianians kill Israeli civilians. Israelis kill Palestinian civilians. Israelis kidnap Palestinians.
You lie. Again.

Palestinians kidnap Israelis.

And have as a charter the destruction of Ireal. wake up from your apologetic state.

And, genetically (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,605798,00.html), they are the same people.

Not really, you need to check your facts.

clj4

Jul21-06, 01:23 AM

clj4

Jul21-06, 01:30 AM

clj4

Jul21-06, 01:33 AM

So Israel's reason of existance is that they are there, have the biggest guns, and the most powerful friends. As is the case anywhere else.

You forget a "small" detail: they were there, CONTINOUSLY for 5-6000 years.

clj4

Jul21-06, 01:40 AM

clj4

Jul21-06, 01:44 AM

clj4

Jul21-06, 01:46 AM

yeap, wonder why they are not condemming anything ----hmmmm---- ohh yeah because of the Israeli lobbist in Washington

Now your bias is starting to show even more. The reason US is not intervening is that it wants Hezbollah delt with, once and for all. You do not negociate with terrorists.

clj4

Jul21-06, 01:50 AM

I'm confused when you bombed that airport what were the civillian casualties, 79 wasn't it, something like that? So what about israel bombing civillians is untrue? The fact is the major casualties of this war, are civillian, men, women and children, are you denying this? Perhaps I insulted the IDF by claiming they couldn't kill more civillians if they tried? I apologise I've obviously cast aspersions on their skills.

I watch the news every day and all I see is civillian casualties rising, are the lives of two soldiers recompensed by the lives of 300 dead civillians on both sides? Is this teaching Hezbollah that their methods wont work, or by pounding them are you mereley making there iron resolve into steel? Are all the other middle Eastern terrorist groups getting pissed with Israel, is their recruitment going to sky rocket, could fundementalist lunatics get any more partisan? What is it you are hoping to achieve here? You seem to have a habbit of moving into the Lebanon getting bitten and then retreating, is this all just a little bit of history repeating? If you withdraw this time it'll be the 4th time IIRC, perhaps you should consider doing it before more lives are lost? You made your point, how many more innocent people have to die?

I'm surprised actually I thought that post was more insulting to the US, but then I guess they are used to it:smile: :tongue2: .

Don't get me wrong I am impartial in this affair, I disagree equally with what both sides are doing and hope for peace. I personally find indiscriminately rocketing Israel to be cowardly and abhorrent, but this overkill startegy is lowering yourself to their level; it's hardly a way to garner favour with the rest of the world now is it? Personally I think this was a job for Mossad and special force units, not the IDF, a softly softly catchy monkey approach would have worked better IMO, at least it would have been more discriminate.

You might be right but it appears that a lot of the world thinks that this may be a job of finishing Hezbollah, once and for all. You need the army in order to do that. The first thing to do is to cut their retreats such that they do not run back to Syria. The second thing you do, you bomb the hell out of their positions. The third thing you do you sent the infantry to finish them off.

clj4

Jul21-06, 01:52 AM

I think it became a "law of nature" now. Israel will always be doing this, as long as it exists, and will always be attacked by terrorists, as long as it exists.
This is now based upon ~50 years of data taking, without any empirical failure has been observed to this law.

Accumulated terrorist attacks on Israel induce responses by the IDF into their neighbour's territory, lots of casualties, etc... which then induces sympathy for the terrorist organisations, support, money, arms, recruites, ... and the cycle starts over again. How do you see any end to this ? Even if you destroy Hezbollah, another organization will take over.

So I guess we simply should get used to it.

You destroy Hezzbollah. Then you wait and see. It hasn't been done before, no it is a good opportunity to see. What a novel approach, destroy the terrorists.

Yonoz

Jul21-06, 01:59 AM

Of course they're targeting infrastructure! Bombed roads, bombed bridges, bombed airports, a total blockade - that's "infrastrcture" in my dictionary, and it's causing a humanitarian crisis (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/218615/115341364889.htm). Obviously IDF does not target civilians directly (unlike Hizbollah), that's almost tautological.If Israel wished to target the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, the Lebanese would have no electricity, no petrol, their police and military installations would be destroyed, etc. This is not the case. Those bridges and roads are used to supply rockets to be fired into Israel, as such they are legitimate targets according to international law.
Similarly, Israel's blockade is in full accordance with international law.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul21-06, 02:31 AM

What does that mean, lose gracefully ? For the Israelis, just sit on their *** while bombs go off and cities are under rocket fire ? For how many years ? Without voting in for a hardliner who promises to hit back ?
And for Arabs, to change the mind of their populations, against all the grieves they have for a multitude of reasons, so that not one single terrorist comes out of it ?

I means compromise. Israel to return the lands they took from Palestine in breach of the UN treaty and for Palestinians to accept Israels right to exist and to work towards the dismantelling of terror groups. I don't expect Israel to do nothing, but the level of retaliation is to most people totally out of proportion and no doubt it will come back to haunt Israel.

@Yonez I can't listen to the tape I don't have a sound card. Is It khomenia saying to the leader of Hezbollah to abduct two Israelli soldiers? Or is it more indirect stuff that is pretty inconclusive? I's not Irans involvement I question it's the speculation that they are behind all of this.

Yonoz

Jul21-06, 02:42 AM

By no means am I defending Hezbollah and certainly not attacks that are unprovoked. I agree Israel like any sovereign nation has a right to self defense, but they could have responded in a way less likely to escalate into a wider conflict.What should Israel do considering the fact that Hizbullah, calling for the destruction of Israel, has over 12000 rockets and is shelling Israeli civilians? Does any country have to wait for every single weapon to be used against its civilians before it attempts to destroy it?
Both sides have agendas that are questionable and likely detrimental to the entire world, which is weary of it.What's so questionable about Israel's agenda? Israel has called for the deployment of the Lebanese army on the border - is this questionable? Is the demand that Hizbullah be disarmed as per UN security council resolutions questionable? Perhaps it's the demand that the kidnapped soldiers be returned?

And I agree with much of what you've posted except the comment about reasonable terms and Arafat. I consider Jimmy Carter to be someone well versed in Mideast affairs, and he himself said that had Arafat agreed to the terms, which were not reasonable, Arafat would have been assassinated. But dwelling on this kind of history only gets in the way of finding solutions for the Mideast.I highly doubt that, but nevertheless - Israel has paid that exact price. I think that Rabin's assassination serves as a grim reminder of the toll the majority in Israel is paying to bring about a change, without a single Palestinian/Lebanese/Muslim act of good faith to help them achieve it.

So I would like to redirect my post to the matter of groups such as Hezbollah, and why such groups emerge and are able to gain popularity. The point about corruption is a good point, and a problem particularly in the third world, but it is everywhere on some level, even the U.S. What is fuelling the hatred? Just internal Arab affairs, or generations of propaganda? That plays a part, but that doesn't explain all of it.The fact remains that there have always been violent conflicts between shiites, sunnys, kurds and other forces. The Lebanese civil war, the Iraq-Iran war, and the countless attacks on civilian populations that are continuing today. These are generally ignored by the media. However, when a non-Muslim force is participating, suddenly the entire world halts in its tracks and does its best to appease the Muslim world. This may be acceptable when a foreign power is fighting a war miles and miles away from its borders, but for nearly 60 years Israel is fighting for its survival. As upsetting as it may be to the Muslim world, Israel is here to stay and we will not tolerate attacks on our civilians. What has the international community done in Darfur? Ethiopia? Northern Iraq? Chechnya? While even pre-independence Israeli aggression is repeatedly debated here, have you ever even heard of Hama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_Massacre)? So those nations who were fiercely brutal in the past are now reaping the fruits of the fear they've sown into entire populations while Israel, that's been trying to appease the Arab world for over a decade, is shamelessly presented as the root of all evil in the middle east.
The biggest criticism against Israel is whether its response is proportionate. I'm not sure that ever in history such judgement was passed so quickly in the early stages of a bilaterally declared open war. You're basically saying Israel should wait until more of its civilians die before removing the threat.

The U.S. has had a negative effect in many countries all around the world in an attempt to control local politics for self-serving reasons. In the case of the Mideast there is oil of course, but there also has been growing racism against Arabs and Islam in America. I don't listen to NPR to know this, and it's much more mainstream then racism against Jews has ever been.So when Muslims hate the west it's the west's fault, and when westerners hate Muslims it's unexplainable? Proportions, anyone? Even if that was true, it's the actions of both parties you should scrutinize. We're no saints but I don't think we've earned a fraction of the hatred and violence aimed at us.
And all you have to do is look at UN resolutions to see consistent U.S. bias in favor of Israel.Funny, we view the UN as biased against Israel.
Would this upset you if you were Arab? I think it would.Just don't upset the Arabs. Please. Let them butcher Israelis, just don't upset those Arabs. Let them commit mass murders in Darfur, just don't upset them! Let them use chemical warfare on the Kurds and Ethiopians, just don't upset them... Let them blow themselves up in buses, markets and mosques, just don't upset them.
One day you're going to wake up when Iran has nuclear capabilities. They will say "we want Israel destroyed", like they always have, will you "not upset them"? Of course, it doesn't mean much to you, since you don't live here.
Can you even begin to imagine what it's like to have you country's very existence in jeopardy?

Yonoz

Jul21-06, 03:04 AM

I asked for your explanation of when and what Israel most recently did to pursue as a reasonable means to remove Hezbollah prior to this attack, "the security council report" isn't an answer at all. Calling for a security force strong enough to acomplish the goal would be, but did Israel ever try that?First, get your facts straight. Israel is not asking for Hizbullah to be removed - we know it's a pipe dream, or to put it in your own word - a strawman. If you don't want to believe me when I say Israel converses regularly with UNIFIL officials about Hizbullah attacks I don't really mind.
For a force to disarm Hizbullah it would need a UN mandate to do so (highly unlikely, impossible before this conflict), the ability to comb south Lebanon (otherwise Hizbullah will simply move weapons around), the ability and mandate to use force against any resistance and countries willing to present and supply such a force. Do you think that's likely to ever happen? What country would step into the sticky Lebanese mud? It's political suicide. Does the UN security council need Israel to force it into enforcing its own resolutions? Apparently so. Do you think Israel is happy to just march into war without exhausting every other viable option? It certainly seems you do, so here's one Israeli telling you we're not.

Israel has a responsibility to defend it's civilians and that is why it should have called for a security force strong enough to remove Hezbollah's presence form the boarder long ago. Calling on international help to secure the routes to Iran would have been well with within Israel's rights as well, but blowing up whatever you think you need to most certainly is not Israel's or anyone else's right.Are you familiar at all with international law? Read up on the Geneva convention, you'll find Israel has every right to bomb the bridges, runways, radar installations, even civilian houses if they store weapons.
I've yet to see Arab leaders who have attacked entire populations taken to the international court. I've yet to see Chinese officials taken to the international court, despite execution of Falun-Gong members for organ harvesting and the systemic destruction of the Tibetan nation. I've yet to see Russians taken to the international court for punishing the civilian population in Chechnya. I've yet to see Europe stand trial for its African adventure, in which even Belgium, the embodiment of post-colonialist self-righteousness murdered an elected official to keep its puppet government in place. It's all politics, don't be gullible.

A sincere response requires a fair offer, and like you said the green line would be a fair offer; but you can't expect a sincere response when you haven't made a fair offer.Let me try to clarify a point about negotiations that you fail to grasp despite it being explained several times already in this discussion: both sides have to first recognise each other's basic rights. Then comes the part about making offers.

Yonoz

Jul21-06, 03:15 AM

I means compromise. Israel to return the lands they took from Palestine in breach of the UN treaty and for Palestinians to accept Israels right to exist and to work towards the dismantelling of terror groups.There was never a state called Palestine so Israel certainly could not have taken lands from it. The occupied territories were conquered from Arab nations. I don't know what UN treaty you're referring to, perhaps you could provide more detail.
I don't expect Israel to do nothing, but the level of retaliation is to most people totally out of proportion and no doubt it will come back to haunt Israel.What is so disproportionate about it? Do you know how many rockets have landed in Israel so far? Over 1000, only from Hizbullah. And that's not counting mortars and anti-aircraft shells.

I can't listen to the tape I don't have a sound card. Is It khomenia saying to the leader of Hezbollah to abduct two Israelli soldiers? Or is it more indirect stuff that is pretty inconclusive? I's not Irans involvement I question it's the speculation that they are behind all of this.Iran founded, funds, arms, trains and provides the ideological backing for Hizbullah. Obviously they would not make such an instruction public, and for Israel to provide proof of one would mean loss of an invaluable intelligence source. So I guess you'll just have to consider how likely it is that the extension of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard takes its orders from Iran.

Mickey

Jul21-06, 03:26 AM

Hezbollah has a religious conviction that taking action to max out Lebanese civilian casualties is justified, since Israel is pulling the trigger. They are more than eager to use the deaths to create more hatred against Israel. This operation, the kidnapping of soldiers, etc., is a PR campaign for them to get more support.

And it's working, of course. Reporters in Lebanon are finding out that it doesn't matter whether people are pro-Hezbollah or anti-Hezbollah, they are all anti-Israel. Today the Lebanese Defence Minister reported that many Lebanese soldiers will likely break ranks and join Hezbollah, and there's nothing he can do about it.

The scariest thing, though, was when I saw Anderson Cooper today interview people on the streets in Syria. They all seemed peaceful and sanguine. It was in a really charming marketplace. He asked them questions like, how do you like your government, what do you think of Bush's desire to bring democracy to the Middle East, and so on. And they were like, shame on Bush, we're just fine. Our government is so good. We can criticize them all we want, it's just that there's nothing to criticize.

I seriously bought into it for a second. Then Cooper cut to the next segment, where he said that after he turned the cameras off, people came up to him and said, "we'd like to tell you how we really think, but we're afraid the secret police will come after us."

This Hezbollah stuff is only a proxy conflict against the real bad guys.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul21-06, 04:54 AM

There was never a state called Palestine so Israel certainly could not have taken lands from it. The occupied territories were conquered from Arab nations. I don't know what UN treaty you're referring to, perhaps you could provide more detail.

I find this sort of politcal BS insulting to Palestinians, it was there land given over by treaty, you broke the treaty and stole it and you refuse to give it back and your premise is they were not a state so we can break our promise before the world because they do not exist as a people or a state :rofl: OK whatever, you broke your promise before the world, live with it. If it wasn't bad enough that a minority population was given their land in the first place you then steal more and pass them off as itinerant peasants, please you'll really have to do better than that.

What is so disproportionate about it? Do you know how many rockets have landed in Israel so far? Over 1000, only from Hizbullah. And that's not counting mortars and anti-aircraft shells.

2 soldiers kidnapped 300+ dead civillians. You are admitting this is revenge for past events and has nothing to do with the soldiers then? It's an excuse pretty much to war yes? a sort of pay back for past misdemeanours?

Iran founded, funds, arms, trains and provides the ideological backing for Hizbullah. Obviously they would not make such an instruction public, and for Israel to provide proof of one would mean loss of an invaluable intelligence source. So I guess you'll just have to consider how likely it is that the extension of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard takes its orders from Iran.

The focus started off soley on Syria now it has turned towards Iran or there is a distinct effort ot implicate Iran by US and to some extent UK media, do you think we may have an ulteriror motive in protraying Iran as the Axis of all evil? And do you wonder why I take this sort of propoganda and theorising with a pinch of salt, ifs and maybes are that, show me a direct link and I'll hold my hands up and agree, otherwise I'm going along with the position that it's the Syrians who instigated this, as it seemed to be in the first place untill the media machine got around to Iran.

Anttech

Jul21-06, 04:56 AM

No. It's my perception that you've been suckered. You thought things were bad before, then someone invoked the word "children", and suddenly you think things are even worse!

The simple fact that there are civilian casualties suggests that there are children dying. If the report said that a mere 1%, or a whopping 75% of the casualties were children, that would be surprising. But that "1/3 of all casualties are children" is roughly what you should have already been imagining.

So, the statement "1/3 of all casualties are children" contains essentially no content, so it's not really meant to inform. It's meant to remind you that children are dying, thus evoking an emotional response. A classic appeal to emotion.

IIRC, I know that you find any number of civilian casualties, be it one or one million, is unacceptable. I know you find the situation disgusting -- but I very strongly suspect it's the mere fact that there are civilian casualties is what you find disgusting... that those casualties involve children is just a red herring.WOW -- talk about over analysing. I'll think you will find this whole arguement you are *attempting* to get into with me is a red herring

Anttech

Jul21-06, 05:06 AM

But you greeks have a looong history of antisemitism and apologism towards the muslims. After all , you spent about 500 years under the turks.

Apologism towards Muslims? :rofl:

It was 300 years and it was the ottomans, not the turks. Turkey didnt exsist.

Ask Yonzo, he will *probably* back me up, being an Israeli. There are *Many* people in Israel belonging to Greek anceistry. Hell we own a very large porportion of the Land in Jerusalem. Greece especially in Thessaloniki *had* a massive Jewish community. Most of them where Murdered in WII, by the Nazi's.

http://www.ushmm.org/greece/eng/salonika.htm

Greek resistance groups, both communist and non-communist, battled the Axis occupiers in an effort, not only to save Greece, but also to save the Jews living there. The small number — 8,000 to 10,000 — of Greek Jews that survived the Holocaust was due in part to the unwillingness of Greek people to cooperate with German plans for their deportation. In addition, the Italian occupying authorities refused to facilitate or permit deportations from the Italian zone of occupation until Italy surrendered in September 1943.

We are not appoligetic towards terrorists (I think thats the word you ment to use, not equate Muslim with Terrorist, it shows your true colours). I would love for you to back that statement up with some facts.

Loooong history indeed of antisemitism

Anttech

Jul21-06, 05:14 AM

Now your bias is starting to show even more. The reason US is not intervening is that it wants Hezbollah delt with, once and for all. You do not negociate with terrorists.

You dont negotiate with terrorists is a slogan, just like Russ put earlier "Give peace a chance" is. Its something Bushco like to say all the time, as a premesis to do whatever they like. The UK Goverment negotiated with Terrorists in Ireland many times, and ohhh look there is now peace! Regardsless Hezbollah needs it sting taken away, I am all for that. But Israel is going way beyond a terrorist opp Like Putin said, it is now completely destroying Lebanon. A Free Deomcratic mixed race country.

Yonoz

Jul21-06, 05:17 AM

I find this sort of politcal BS insulting to Palestinians, it was there land given over by treaty, you broke the treaty and stole it and you refuse to give it back and your premise is they were not a state so we can break our promise before the wolrd because they do not exist as a people or a state :rofl: OK whatever, you broke your promise before the world, live with it. If it wasn't bad enough that a minority population was given their land in the first place you then steal more and pass them off as itinerant peasants, please you'll really have to do better than that.What is this treaty you speak of?

2 soldiers kidnapped 300+ dead civillians. You are admitting this is revenge for past events and has nothing to do with the soldiers then?How did you get that impression?
It's an excuse pretty much to war yes?Yeah, when rockets are falling on civilians it's a pretty good "excuse" to go to war. That's what governments are meant to do - protect their civilians. It's surprising that you do not criticize, and even rationalize, acts of aggression against Israel, yet see Israeli self-defence as unacceptable.

The focus started off soley on Syria now it has teunrend towards Iran or there is a distinct effort ot impicate Iran by US and to some extent UK media, do you think we may have a n ulteriror motive in protraying Iran as the Axis of all evil?I think the motive to implicate Iran is quite straight-forward. Iran is destabilizing the region and stalling efforts to stop it from developing nuclear weapons. Very transparent for a conspiracy.
And do you wonder why I take this sort of propoganda and theorising with a pinch of salt, ifs and maybes are that, show me a direct link and I'll hold my hands up and agree, otherwise I'm going along with the position that it's the Syrians who instigated this, as it seemd to be in the first place untill the media machine got around to Iran.Fine, stick your head in the sand.

Yonoz

Jul21-06, 05:28 AM

But Israel is going way beyond a terrorist opp Like Putin said, it is now completely destroying Lebanon.Lessons in fighting terrorism from Putin (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/russia/chechnya/)? :rofl: Get your bearings straight mate, this is just another bit of world politics. If you're going to lecture about proportions I suggest you abstain from making unproportionate statements such as "Israel is completely destroying Lebanon".

Anttech

Jul21-06, 05:34 AM

BTW Yonzo, where are u? Even tho I dont aggree with your goverments actions right now, you seem a good guy, and I hope you are safe.

Yonoz

Jul21-06, 05:57 AM

BTW Yonzo, where are u? Even tho I dont aggree with your goverments actions right now, you seem a good guy, and I hope you are safe.I appreciate your concern.
I go to university in the south. My family lives center north, right at the edge of the rocket hit area. Of course I have many friends and family living right in the middle of all the bombardements, and their lives are quite affected by the fighting. I won't go into all the details, it's quite clear the Lebanese are suffering much more than Israelis, and we've both been through worse. War is not good for anyone, but this time I can safely say the Israeli public is united and certain our government had no choice.
Having done my bit to help prepare for this war in some reserve service I had during the schoolyear, this saturday I'm going to set up a Peace Now (http://www.peacenow.org.il/) booth at a local mall. I hope people won't be too upset we're doing this at a time of war, we've decided we'll leave if it gets rough.

Anttech

Jul21-06, 06:20 AM

Its your democratic right, and good for you! If Lebanon Israel and Palestine could rid its self of these problems of extreemism. What a beatiful, and prosperus place it would be.

Yonoz

Jul21-06, 06:24 AM

If Lebanon Israel and Palestine could rid its self of these problems of extreemism. What a beatiful, and prosperus place it would be.We had dreams of that during the time of the Oslo accords. It's sad to admit that I don't think I'll get to see that in my lifetime.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul21-06, 06:44 AM

What is this treaty you speak of?

The UN partition plan, now where as the reason for taking these distinctly demarkated Arab/Palestinian state may have been to pre-empt a strike and may even have had merit at the time, holding onto them and refusing to give them back is a clear breach of an already unfair treaty that you no doubt signed eagerly and then failed to uphold, you broke your word, to make ammends for this breach of trust you might want to consider giving the land back.

FYI Palestine declared itself a state in 1988, although it is not recognised by the UN, US influence again no doubt, It does have diplomatic ties with the EU, who recognise it's authority, you may also like to know the state when declared also recognised the pre 1967 boundaries, and accepted Israels right to exist. About half the worlds countries recognise it's existence. It's an aside to the original point but FYI, you can't take someones land and then claim they are not a state so you took nothing, no one is going to take that seriously, we could of said the same thing about the American indians, the Zulu or the Mauori, but we were more honest back then, we know we stole it, we recognised it then and we recognise it now. No one expects you to give the partition plan land back now, it's not realistic and I happen to think you've fought hard enough for the right to live there, the extras though should be part of any peace process.

EDIT: Here's a quote I think echoes my sentiment:

"Only then [after an internal revolution] will the young and old in our land realize how great was our responsibility to those miserable Arab refugees in whose towns we have settled from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruit of whose gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we robbed, we put up houses of education, charity and prayer." -
- Philosopher Martin Buber addressing fellow Jews in 1961

Although people like this shouldn't be alowed to speak in public, I can see where your ideas come from.

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist." -- Golda Meir Statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.

"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to." -- Golda Meir (quoted in Chapter 13 of The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace by Alfred Lilienthal )

Astronuc

Jul21-06, 07:33 AM

Arabs rally behind Hezbollah (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060721/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_shiite_power;_ylt=ApH.c7sJl3eZMTi_yPpplYIU ewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NmxuamZjBHNlYwNyaGw-)
CAIRO, Egypt - The fighting between Israel and Hezbollah exposed divisions across the Arab world, not only between Shiites and Sunnis but also between Arab governments and their citizens.

Key Arab allies of the United States, predominantly Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, fear the rising power of Shiites in the region: Hezbollah militants who virtually control southern Lebanon, Iraq's majority Shiite government, and — most worrisome — the Shiite theocracy that has run Iran for decades.

Yet many ordinary people, Sunnis as well as Shiites, are cheering the Lebanese guerrillas because of their willingness to stand up to Israel.
U.N. post hit in Israel-Hezbollah fighting (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060721/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel) BEIRUT, Lebanon - A U.N.-run observation post near the border took a direct hit Friday during fighting between Israel and Hezbollah militants. Israel resumed airstrikes on Lebanon and prepared for a possible ground invasion, warning people in the south to flee. Well, it is escalating. But note - Israel does warn civilians to get out of the way - Hizbollah shells (targets) Isreali population centers (civilians).

Cyrus

Jul21-06, 07:57 AM

Because the Hezbollah, like the Hamas hides amongst the civilians. You didn't know that? Now you do.

Thank you for that piece of information. I hadn't the faintest idea..:uhh:

Post something with substance or take a hike. Stop spamming posts with no content.

Yonoz

Jul21-06, 08:06 AM

The UN partition plan, now where as the reason for taking these distinctly demarkated Arab/Palestinian state may have been to pre-empt a strike and may even have had merit at the time, holding onto them and refusing to give them back is a clear breach of an already unfair treaty that you no doubt signed eagerly and then failed to uphold, you broke your word, to make ammends for this breach of trust you might want to consider giving the land back.The UN partition plan was not a treaty. A treaty is accepted by both sides. The Jewish leadership accepted this plan but the Arab nations, whome the Palestinians have chosen to represent them, refused to accept the formation of a Jewish state and so rejected the plan. Thus, it is not a treaty and Israel is not bound by it. Nevertheless, the parts that remained in Arab hands were not formed into a Palestinian state by the Arab nations, whome Israel fought in the 6-day war. Now, seeing as that land was held by the Arab nations and used by their armies to attack Israel, Israel is under no obligation to the Palestinians, who saw themselves as the subjects of those Arab nations. In the Khartoum conference following the 6-day war, Arab nations elected not to negotiate with Israel. While in retrospect it may have been wise for Israel to form a Palestinian state in the occupied territories, we can only speculate whether such a state could have been formed and what its relations with Israel and the Arab nations might have been. Thus the territories were kept but not annexed (with the exception of the Golan Heights) and certain groups started buying lands and returning to old Jewish settlements such as the Hebron community that was massacred in 1929, and ones that were lost in the war of independence. This is how the now infamous settlements began.
BTW, we are considering "giving the land back", as we have with the Gaza Strip and as we plan to do with the West Bank. We've sat at the negotiating table many times only to be disillusioned by PA-sponsored acts of terror at the peak of negotiations.

FYI Palestine declared itself a state in 1988, although it is not recognised by the UN, US influence again no doubtNo doubt? Excuse me if I take this sort of propoganda and theorising with a pinch of salt, ifs and maybes are that.
It does have diplomatic ties with the EU, who recognise it's authority, you may also like to know the state when declared also recognised the pre 1967 boundaries, and accepted Israels right to exist.So if it was formed in 1988, how could Israel steal its land like you have claimed? You're not making much sense there.
The declaration does not recognise Israel's right to exist, and the Hamas government's ideology still calls for the destruction of Israel.

About half the worlds countries recognise it's existence. It's an aside to the original point but FYI, you can't take someones land and then claim they are not a state so you took nothing, no one is going to take that seriously, we could of said the same thing about the American indians, the Zulu or the Mauori, but we were more honest back then, we know we stole it, we recognised it then and we recognise it now.Can you please show me how Israel has stolen lands from the Palestinian state, considering that it was declared 1988 and Israel hasn't taken any land, but rather gave over 100% of its current size away since 1967?
I don't see how anyone can compare the conquering of new lands by imperial nations to the peaceful return of the Jewish people to our homeland after 2 millenia of persecution in the diaspora. But nevermind that because that last sentence was fun to read - "we were more honest back then, we know we stole it, we recognised it then and we recognise it now". Why don't you contemplate that a little more before lecturing me about land rights. So many nations were born in sin, and yet you feel no shame criticizing us.

Although people like this shouldn't be alowed to speak in publicWhat's happened to your noble morals? Do you only live by them if they serve a purpose? There sure seems to be a lot of that around.
When presented with the option of living peacefuly with the Jews, the ancestors of the Palestinians chose to align themselves with the Arab countries and to become their subjects, in hope that their armies would crush Israel. Now they're disillusioned, and expect us to forget years and years of bloodshed? They expect us to just hand over land we've fought for and raised our children on? Only through negotiations will a fair settlement be reached. Until they're ready to take that step, the Israeli leadership is simply forced to make unilateral moves. I know of no country that has gone into negotiations with a terrorist group whose ideology is its destruction.

Hurkyl

Jul21-06, 08:09 AM

Like Putin said, it is now completely destroying Lebanon
Completely destroying?!?! Countries have undergone years of carpet bombing, and emerged all right. I think Lebanon can survive a week or so of tactical and strategic bombing.

You lie. ... You lie. Again.
"You lie" usually requires some explanation, y'know. :tongue:

It was 300 years and it was the ottomans, not the turks. Turkey didnt exsist.
The Ottomans were Turks.

2 soldiers kidnapped 300+ dead civillians. You are admitting this is revenge for past events and has nothing to do with the soldiers then? It's an excuse pretty much to war yes? a sort of pay back for past misdemeanours?
Because, of course, Hezbollah has done nothing except kidnap 2 civilians. :rolleyes:

WOW -- talk about over analysing.
It's called supporting one's assertions. When I'm making a point, that I actually have reasoning for it, rather than spouting out a bunch of emotional appeals or other fallacies...

this whole arguement you are *attempting* to get into with me is a red herring
which is what this subthread is about. If you think that's a red herring, then by all means continue to be suckered by and and be a repeater for emotional appeals, then go ahead. Just don't expect your posts to have any weight.

Anttech

Jul21-06, 08:29 AM

The Ottomans were Turks.

Following your logic then everything Hellenised is Greek???? Nope. The bysantium empire before the ottoman empire enveloped most of the Middle east and eastern Europe, but they werent all greek. The Ottomans were Arabs that came towards Europe in the conquest of breaking up the Bysantium empire. They were NOT turks, because there was never such a place as Turkey untill the fall of the Ottomen Empire. However there was a people called the "Turkic" where the country after the Ottomans fell got there name from.

Edit: To be honest it depends on how you classify "Turks" as any tribe that spoke a dervitive of the Turkic langauge group or people from the land that is now called Turkey. Right now there is about 5 or 6 countries that speak a turkic langauge derivative.

In modern Turkey, a distinction is made between "Turks" and the "Turkic peoples": the term Türk corresponds specifically to Turkish people and culture, while the term Türki refers generally to modern Turkic peoples and cultures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples#Geographical_distribution

So the ottomans would be better described as differing tribes of Arabs not Turks, since there was no such place as Turkey before the Ottomans fell I would not say that the ottomans are turks.

Hurkyl

Jul21-06, 08:35 AM

However there was a people called the "Turkic"
Yes. The word "Turk" refers to the Turkic peoples. In fact, the Ottoman Empire was founded by a tribe of Oghuz Turks, and I've generally heard the Ottomans referred to as the "Ottoman Turks".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

Anttech

Jul21-06, 08:41 AM

Completely destroying?!?! Countries have undergone years of carpet bombing, and emerged all right. I think Lebanon can survive a week or so of tactical and strategic bombing.

Which ones would those be? Qualifiy your statment with a few examples please.

"Alright" meaning, after the carpet bombing everyone was happy and the ecconomy was boombing. Or Alright in the sence that the country was still there. :rolleyes:

Anttech

Jul21-06, 08:46 AM

I've generally heard the Ottomans referred to as the "Ottoman Turks". Yes in modern time perhaps, but it arguably incorrect to call them this, since there never was such a place as Turkey.

The word "Turk" refers to the Turkic peoples The word Turk refers to the Turkish people not the Turkic people. The word Turkic refers to Turkic people. ;)

vanesch

Jul21-06, 08:56 AM

You destroy Hezzbollah. Then you wait and see. It hasn't been done before, no it is a good opportunity to see. What a novel approach, destroy the terrorists.

Hehe, I know of another successful example of that strategy :rofl:
(6 weeks, or 6 months was it :tongue2: )

It's very simple: Israel is in a place where there's a lot of folks around it who don't like them. Some don't like them so much, that they'd even die for it. On the other hand, Israel has, for the moment, the biggest guns, so it can hit back. But just to entertain itself, to take a breath of air again, and to start all over. Because the guns don't solve the problem.

Because each time there's a bomb that falls on a house on the other side, and there's an innocent, or a not-so-innocent that dies or gets hurt, the folks around get reinforced in not liking Israel.

You can't win against terrorism, if it is rooted in the masses around you.
You can win against a few crazy terrorists nobody likes: just track them down and pick them up or kill them. But you can't if it is rooted in the populations amongst whom you're living. For each terrorist you kill, and each innocent you kill, you provoke more recruits for new ones. Your only hope is to diminish their hatred, if you want the terrorism to stop. But if the hatred is strong enough, you won't even succeed.

However, terrorism cannot win against a nation with many big guns either, and with people determined to stay, no matter what it costs them.

And that's why this thing will go on and on.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul21-06, 10:17 AM

The UN partition plan was not a treaty. snip.

more political BS, you don't work for the Israeli governement by any chance? No, thank god for that :) I will say only one thing, no one outside of Israel is buying any of that, and saying if a people don't declare themselves a state they don't own the land is like claiming that all the non European countries England conquered had no right to claim their land back because they had not declarded themselves a state, sorry India you can't have your coutnry back you weren't a state? Never mind, I thought I'd made this clear but it isn't obvious to you still. You need to accept the idea that everyone outside of Israel thinks that Palestine belonged to the Palestinians or Arabs who lived there before 1890 when you were but 5% of the population, when you turned up you took the land, or rather were gifted it, it already belonged to someone else OK, you sound like that raccist I quoted at the End there in that you believe these people didn't exist and that you moved into a ghostland, saying they weren't a state is essentially saying they were worthless and you had no need to honour there right to their land, and it's very derrogatory language. We don't buy it, hell does anyone in good moral conscience? You signed up to the partition plan they didn't, that still means you have to honour it, it was an agreement with the UN as well you know, they signed too, you broke your word to them?

You can spin history however you like, your kidding only yourself with rhetoric like that. I'm not partial to one side or the other but your one sided logic, smacks of condecension, I hope this sort of weaseling isn't typical amongst Israelis, surely you can see that this sort of ideology can lead only to descriminatory thought, you should start being more rational about your history and a little less one sided, probably not easy, may be impossible, but denying people rights because you don't acknowledge they have any isn't considered a civil way to behave.

EDIT: It is the US who uses it's veto powers to refuse recognition of Palestinians membership to the UN, it was passed by 200-4 votes. It only needed one country to veto it though and that was the US. Here's an update though on why it may of got stateship, it's academic though. I was wrong two thirds of all couintries now officially recognise Palestine as a state.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/2002/0519palmem.htm

There were two good strategic reasons for this. First, the Palestinian leadership believed that discretion and peaceful negotiations were more likely to produce a warm and open peace based on the two-state solution than thrusting the Palestinian state agressively in the face of an Israeli state which, after all, still occupied militarily all of Palestine. Second, the Palestinian leadership believed that, at each point when bringing the state out of the closet was a serious prospect (indeed, on several occasions when President Arafat had solemnly promised to do so), a U.S. veto of UN membership was highly likely and might make the Palestinian position worse than before.

kyleb

Jul21-06, 11:43 AM

First, get your facts straight. Israel is not asking for Hizbullah to be removed...
I am trying to get your claims straight, I asked, you responded, and I asked for clarifcation:

...what reasonable means did Israel peruse to clear the boarder of Hezbollah prior to the attacks?
Repeated calls to the Lebanese government and the UN, meetings with UNIFIL officials, supersonic booms over major cities and limited strikes against Syrian targets.
Lebanese government can barely keep themselves together, let alone are they in any position to remove a Hezbollah from the boader, and supersonic booms are strikes on Syria obviously aren't any way to get Hezbollah off the boarder either. Working UN and UNIFIL officals can be helpful though, when and what exactly was the last time Israel made a valid effort to resolve the problem of Hezbollah that way?

So please, it is up to you to set your claim straight or admit that Israel did not peruse reasonable means before resorting to war.

Are you familiar at all with international law? Read up on the Geneva convention, you'll find Israel has every right to bomb the bridges, runways, radar installations, even civilian houses if they store weapons.
I am fairly familiar with the Geneva Conventions, what potions of it are you claiming to be sighting here?

Let me try to clarify a point about negotiations that you fail to grasp despite it being explained several times already in this discussion: both sides have to first recognise each other's basic rights. Then comes the part about making offers.
I'm pointing out the fact that Israel has continuously denied the Palestinians rights by occupying and colonizing their land.

kyleb

Jul21-06, 11:47 AM

Can you please show me how Israel has stolen lands from the Palestinian state, considering that it was declared 1988 and Israel hasn't taken any land, but rather gave over 100% of its current size away since 1967?
The blue and red dots on this map (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/israel/map/) mark recent examples of land Israel has stolen from the Palestinian state.

Yonoz

Jul21-06, 01:56 PM

I am trying to get your claims straight, I asked, you responded, and I asked for clarifcation:

So please, it is up to you to set your claim straight or admit that Israel did not peruse reasonable means before resorting to war.Israel is demanding Hizbullah be disarmed, it can continue its presence in Lebanon, just not as a paramilitary force. I showed you a UN security council report that states Israel keeps the UNSC informed on every violation of UNSC 1559, which demands Lebanon take control of the south and disarm Hizbullah.

I am fairly familiar with the Geneva Conventions, what potions of it are you claiming to be sighting here?HRW: Questions and Answers on Hostilities Between Israel and Hezbollah (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/17/lebano13748.htm)The mere fact that an object has civilian uses does not necessarily render it immune from attack. It, too, can be targeted if it makes an “effective” contribution to the enemy’s military activities and its destruction, capture or neutralization offers a “definite military advantage” to the attacking side. However, such “dual use” objects might also be protected by the principle of proportionality, described below.
Like airports, roads and bridges may be dual-use targets if actually used for military purposes. Even then, the same rule applies requiring the parties to the conflict to weigh carefully the impact on civilians against the military advantage served; they must consider all ways of minimizing the impact on civilians; and they should not undertake attacks if the civilian harm outweighs the definite military advantage. Human Rights Watch has not yet done the field research that would enable the organization to assess the legitimacy of Israeli attacks on Lebanese roads and bridges, but among the factors to be considered are whether the destruction of particular roads or bridges serve in fact to impede military transport in light of readily alternative routes – that is, whether the infrastructure attacked is making an “effective” contribution to Hezbollah’s military action and its destruction offers a “definite military advantage” – or whether its destruction seems aimed more at inconveniencing the civilian population and even preventing it from fleeing the fighting and seeking safety.

I'm pointing out the fact that Israel has continuously denied the Palestinians rights by occupying and colonizing their land.Let us suppose that this really was the reason for this conflict - where are your proportions now? Does building settlements justify the carnage the Muslim world has brought upon Israel? Did the violence start when Israel started building settlements?

Yonoz

Jul21-06, 02:17 PM

more political BS, you don't work for the Israeli governement by any chance? No, thank god for that :)How amusing.
I will say only one thing, no one outside of Israel is buying any of that, and saying if a people don't declare themselves a state they don't own the land is like claiming that all the non European countries England conquered had no right to claim their land back because they had not declarded themselves a state, sorry India you can't have your coutnry back you weren't a state? Never mind, I thought I'd made this clear but it isn't obvious to you still.It's good to know you speak for everyone outside of Israel.
The English have a home called England. The Indians have a home called India. The Jewish people's home is Israel. I hope you get the difference between Britain colonizing India and Israel conquering the occupied territories off Arab countries.
You need to accept the idea that everyone outside of Israel thinks that Palestine belonged to the Palestinians or Arabs who lived there before 1890 when you were but 5% of the population, when you turned up you took the land, or rather were gifted it, it already belonged to someone else OK, you sound like that raccist I quoted at the End there in that you believe these people didn't exist and that you moved into a ghostland, saying they weren't a state is essentially saying they were worthless and you had no need to honour there right to their land, and it's very derrogatory language.I don't see how it's derogatory, it's an historical fact the ancestors of today's Palestinians were always subjects of other countries. Never did I say they did not exist nor did I say Jews moved into a "ghostland". Saying there was no Palestinian state does not essentially mean they were worthless and no one needed to honor their right to the land. The UN partition plan was accepted by the Jewish leadership and it called for the formation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel - is that not honouring their right to the land? It is the Palestinians that forgave their right for self-rule when their leaders chose they'll remain subjects of Arab countries. Why should we pay for their mistakes.
We don't buy it, hell does anyone in good moral conscience?That's great because I am not selling it.
You signed up to the partition plan they didn't, that still means you have to honour it, it was an agreement with the UN as well you know, they signed too, you broke your word to them?Nope, the State of Israel was declared in full accordance with the partition plan and the Arab nations, certain they could crush it, declared war and attacked it the next morning, from then on it was war. Then came the six day war in which the occupied territories were taken from the Arab countries.

You can spin history however you like, your kidding only yourself with rhetoric like that. I'm not partial to one side or the other but your one sided logic, smacks of condecension, I hope this sort of weaseling isn't typical amongst Israelis, surely you can see that this sort of ideology can lead only to descriminatory thought, you should start being more rational about your history and a little less one sided, probably not easy, may be impossible, but denying people rights because you don't acknowledge they have any isn't considered a civil way to behave.That is your opinion, and it is my opinion that you are partial, one-sided, spinning history, condescending and too self-assured for someone so terribly uninformed. Please stop your personal assault as I'm trying to conduct a meaningful discussion here.

kyleb

Jul21-06, 02:21 PM

Israel is demanding Hizbullah be disarmed, it can continue its presence in Lebanon, just not as a paramilitary force. I showed you a UN security council report that states Israel keeps the UNSC informed on every violation of UNSC 1559, which demands Lebanon take control of the south and disarm Hizbullah.
I understand the terms of UNSC 1559 and I understand that Israel has complained that those terms had not been meant, what I don't see is any reasonable effort by Israel to put a plan into action which would have resolved the problem prior to this war.

HRW: Questions and Answers on Hostilities Between Israel and Hezbollah (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/17/lebano13748.htm)

Like airports, roads and bridges may be dual-use targets if actually used for military purposes.
That is the restriction on the rights you claim which I am taking issue with.

Let us suppose that this really was the reason for this conflict - where are your proportions now? Does building settlements justify the carnage the Muslim world has brought upon Israel? Did the violence start when Israel started building settlements?
Before we can reasonably discuss the history and arguments you bring up I need you acknowledge the fact that Israel has continuously denied the Palestinians rights by occupying and colonizing their land for nearly 40 years. Can you do that?

Bystander

Jul21-06, 02:46 PM

I understand the terms of UNSC 1559 and I understand that Israel has complained that those terms had not been meant, what I don't see is any reasonable effort by Israel to put a plan into action which would have resolved the problem prior to this war.

That's Lebanon's and the UN's problem, not that of the Israelis.

That is the restriction on the rights you claim which I am taking issue with.

Before we can reasonably discuss the history and arguments you bring up I need you acknowledge the fact that Israel has continuously denied the Palestinians rights by occupying and colonizing their land for nearly 40 years. Can you do that?

War is not a video game --- it's "played for keeps." You start a war, you risk losing everything. This isn't too terribly well understood in that part of the world. "Running to mama" (the UN) and crying about the "big bullie" who took your marbles after you tried to steal his doesn't cut it.

Yonoz

Jul21-06, 03:16 PM

I understand the terms of UNSC 1559 and I understand that Israel has complained that those terms had not been meant, what I don't see is any reasonable effort by Israel to put a plan into action which would have resolved the problem prior to this war.Can you suggest such a plan?

That is the restriction on the rights you claim which I am taking issue with.Hizbullah uses rocket launchers mounted on trucks and regular trucks to supply its activists with rockets to be launched on Israel. Hizbullah stores many of these weapons in the Beq'a valley, Beirut area and Tyre. Iran supplies it with weapons via the Beirut airport and Syria. Israeli soldiers were kidnapped from the border and there's a obvious risk they'll be transported to more remote locations in Lebanon and possibly other countries. This means the bridges and roads are legitimate targets for this campaign, and it's quite clear from the article I linked to - I'm surprised you require me to explain it further.

Before we can reasonably discuss the history and arguments you bring up I need you acknowledge the fact that Israel has continuously denied the Palestinians rights by occupying and colonizing their land for nearly 40 years. Can you do that?I disagree with the colonization claim.

kyleb

Jul21-06, 03:35 PM

Can you suggest such a plan?
It's a bit late now for what I was asking for there. But at this point, call off attacks and the impending ground invasion and let NATO forces take over would be my plan, and the Europeans seem interested in doing so as well.

Hizbullah uses rocket launchers mounted on trucks and regular trucks to supply its activists with rockets to be launched on Israel. Hizbullah stores many of these weapons in the Beq'a valley, Beirut area and Tyre. Iran supplies it with weapons via the Beirut airport and Syria. Israeli soldiers were kidnapped from the border and there's a obvious risk they'll be tranported to more remote locations in Lebanon and possibly other countries. This means the bridges and roads are legitimate targets for this campaign, and it's quite clear from the article I linked to - I'm surprised you require me to explain it further.
The difference being what could be used and what actually has been used for military purposes.
I disagree with the colonization claim.
And by what reason do you dispute my use of the term 'colonization' to refer to the continental building of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land?

kyleb

Jul21-06, 03:38 PM

That's Lebanon's and the UN's problem, not that of the Israelis.
If it wasn't Israels problem, they would be there now.

War is not a video game --- it's "played for keeps." You start a war, you risk losing everything. This isn't too terribly well understood in that part of the world. "Running to mama" (the UN) and crying about the "big bullie" who took your marbles after you tried to steal his doesn't cut it.
Sounds like you are the one taking about a video game, I'm talking about real people, many of whom weren't even born yet when this started.

Yonoz

Jul21-06, 04:59 PM

It's a bit late now for what I was asking for there. But at this point, call off attacks and the impending ground invasion and let NATO forces take over would be my plan, and the Europeans seem interested in doing so as well.They "seem interested"? Do you honestly think NATO would be able to disarm Hizbullah, considering the necessities I listed earlier? Do you think Iran and Syria would let Hizbullah be disarmed by NATO forces? Get real.

The difference being what could be used and what actually has been used for military purposes.We've waited enough for Hizbullah's weapons to be used. Feel free to file suit to the international court if you think it's unlawful.

And by what reason do you dispute my use of the term 'colonization' to refer to the continental building of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land?Colonisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonisation) (or colonization) is the act where life forms move into a distant area where their kind is sparse or not yet existing at all and set up new settlements in the area.You may notice the west bank is not at all distant from the pre-war borders. The British colonised India, the French colonised Viet-Nam and Cambodia.

Anttech

Jul21-06, 05:45 PM

They "seem interested"? Do you honestly think NATO would be able to disarm Hizbullah, considering the necessities I listed earlier? Do you think Iran and Syria would let Hizbullah be disarmed by NATO forces? Get real.

Well to be frank, the full force of NATO could Dissarm Israel, so within the context of an iron fist (Which is what you *seem* to think is the answer) NATO could disarm Hezbullah. BUT deploying NATO to the situation wouldnt be about an iron fist, it would be about allowing space and time to solve this crisis with less civilan casualties, and less destroying of Lebanon. Perhaps even NATO would be able to undermine Hezbollah with a lot less destruction and stiring of future hatred, than this current bomb the sh!t out of beruit that is going on.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul21-06, 05:47 PM

That is your opinion, and it is my opinion that you are partial, one-sided, spinning history, condescending and too self-assured for someone so terribly uninformed. Please stop your personal assault as I'm trying to conduct a meaningful discussion here.

Trying and failing believe me, this is a web site dominated by the US posters and you'll find little argument amongst them, I'm prodding you for good reason I want to see your justifications, if it's the same old same old we've heard before as it seems to be, then to me, your just reiterating what all of us have heard already, if you want good debate, think for yourself, don't try and bring tired rhetoric to a modern discussion and I wont prod you. What do you think? Don't tell me what the concensus of your mates is or what you've been told to think, tell me what you understand about the situation, question your media: I do, I think it's biased crap half the time, I look into Israeli sources.

Do me a favour go through all my posts and tell me where exactly my history is wrong, when I'm talking about this crisis you refer to the past, when I'm talking about the past you refer to this crisis, your disengenuous. If you want a real dialogue stop trying to rewrite history in your favour, it might help. If you don't want a good discussion, then let all the fine posters pat you on the back, if that's what you want, so be it.

kyleb

Jul21-06, 05:55 PM

They "seem interested"? Do you honestly think NATO would be able to disarm Hizbullah, considering the necessities I listed earlier? Do you think Iran and Syria would let Hizbullah be disarmed by NATO forces? Get real.
If I did think so I would have said so. Do you think Syria would be less happy with NATO handling this compared to the IDF contuning themselves?

We've waited enough for Hizbullah's weapons to be used. Feel free to file suit to the international court if you think it's unlawful.
Note that alll the waiting you did is one of the things I've been taking issue with here.

You may notice the west bank is not at all distant from the pre-war borders. The British colonised India, the French colonised Viet-Nam and Cambodia.
The planting flags on hilltops and building there is what strikes the image of colonisation to me, but do I agree with your distance argument refuting my use of the term. So, in respect to that; can you acknowledge the fact that Israel has continuously denied the Palestinians rights by occupying and settling on their land for nearly 40 years.

Hurkyl

Jul21-06, 05:57 PM

The word Turk refers to the Turkish people not the Turkic people. The word Turkic refers to Turkic people. ;)
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Turk
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/turk

I never realized how much forsight people back then had, coming up with words to refer to people living in a country that didn't even exist yet. :tongue:

Which ones would those be? Qualifiy your statment with a few examples please.

"Alright" meaning, after the carpet bombing everyone was happy and the ecconomy was boombing. Or Alright in the sence that the country was still there.
I was thinking France, Western Germany, Britain, and Japan. Obviously they weren't better off than they were before the war, but neither were they irreparably harmed.

Yonoz

Jul22-06, 02:13 AM

Trying and failing believe me, this is a web site dominated by the US posters and you'll find little argument amongst them, I'm prodding you for good reason I want to see your justifications, if it's the same old same old we've heard before as it seems to be, then to me, your just reiterating what all of us have heard already, if you want good debate, think for yourself, don't try and bring tired rhetoric to a modern discussion and I wont prod you.It may be "tired rhetoric" to you, but it's grim daily reality for us here. You're accusing me of spinning history but you don't seem to realise I myself have lived right at the epicenter of much of what is being debated here. My grandparents were ones of the settlers who built this country out of swamps and deserts, and having been raised on their socialist ideology, with the emphasis of love of one's fellow man I take your condescending criticque rather personally. You judge us so readily, while clearly you've little touch with the reality here. It's clear to me your life or home have never been in danger.
What do you think? Don't tell me what the concensus of your mates is or what you've been told to think, tell me what you understand about the situation, question your media: I do, I think it's biased crap half the time, I look into Israeli sources.Here's an article that I think covers my thoughts: No Blank Check - Tzali Reshef (http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=195&docid=1845)
Israelis are well-versed in all things military. Most of us have served in the military, our sons and daughters do etc. We've also the dubious experience of one endless conflict. The same goes for our journalists, who know they're not exactly speaking to a crowd of action seeking children. We know which channels and reporters are more nationalist than others, it's come up in my conversations several times over the past few days. There are reporters that specialise in Arab affairs, Arab media, international media, and even before this conflict began they've been delivering as complete a picture as possible. Apart from all the live feeds from Lebanon, there are phone interviews with Lebanese civilians. I watch CNN and Sky because that's all I receive but I also look at a myriad of news sites, most of which are terrible.

Do me a favour go through all my posts and tell me where exactly my history is wrong,
Israel are bombing civillians and Hizbullah are bombing civillians, I don't think either side could killl more civillians if it started aiming for them deliberately.Honestly.
I'm confused when you bombed that airport what were the civillian casualties, 79 wasn't it, something like that?There were no casualties at all.
But to say peace will never work is hypothesis, since it has never been tried how can you make this assumption without evidence?Oslo Accords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords).
I find this sort of politcal BS insulting to Palestinians, it was there land given over by treaty, you broke the treaty and stole it and you refuse to give it back and your premise is they were not a state so we can break our promise before the world because they do not exist as a people or a stateI've shown there was no such treaty, only a UN plan, and that the State of Israel was established according to that plan. It was the Arab nations that attacked it the next day thus "breaking the treaty" in your own words.
The UN partition plan, now where as the reason for taking these distinctly demarkated Arab/Palestinian state may have been to pre-empt a strike and may even have had merit at the time, holding onto them and refusing to give them back is a clear breach of an already unfair treaty that you no doubt signed eagerly and then failed to uphold, you broke your word, to make ammends for this breach of trust you might want to consider giving the land back.Israel never refused to return the land. It actually gave most of it back already. It was the Arab leaders that decided in the Khartoum conference not to negotiate with Israel under any circumstance.
You need to accept the idea that everyone outside of Israel thinks that Palestine belonged to the Palestinians or Arabs who lived there before 1890 when you were but 5% of the population, when you turned up you took the land, or rather were gifted it, it already belonged to someone elseEvery piece of land that was settled before the war of independence was bought. Jews all around the world put whatever money they could spare into the famous JNF (http://www.jnf.org/) "blue box" (photo attached) to redeem the land our entire culture is centred around.
when I'm talking about this crisis you refer to the past, when I'm talking about the past you refer to this crisis, your disengenuous.Please enlighten me.
If you want a real dialogue stop trying to rewrite history in your favour, it might help. If you don't want a good discussion, then let all the fine posters pat you on the back, if that's what you want, so be it.What pat on the back?

Yonoz

Jul22-06, 02:21 AM

Do you think Syria would be less happy with NATO handling this compared to the IDF contuning themselves?I think Syria would be very happy seeing as a NATO force could never achieve such a mission.

Note that alll the waiting you did is one of the things I've been taking issue with here.Wow and I thought you have a problem with everything Israel does...
Seriously though, do you honestly think we're so happy to go to war we haven't done everything to avoid it? My 2 younger brothers are risking their lives right now, and I may be called to reserve service at any moment, do you think my family is happy about this?

The planting flags on hilltops and building there is what strikes the image of colonisation to me, but do I agree with your distance argument refuting my use of the term. So, in respect to that; can you acknowledge the fact that Israel has continuously denied the Palestinians rights by occupying and settling on their land for nearly 40 years.Yes, and as you can see I'm acting on the matter. You can also return to Hurkyl's appeasement list if you're looking for signs of goodwill by Israel to end it.

Yonoz

Jul22-06, 03:02 AM

About seven minutes into this video, you can see a vehicle modified for launching rockets stored in a mosque (http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//944950). The soldiers are removing part of the launching platform and examining a rocket. Notice the vehicle looks completely civilian from the outside, and is stored right under the mosque.

Anttech

Jul22-06, 03:23 AM

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Turk
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/turk

I never realized how much forsight people back then had, coming up with words to refer to people living in a country that didn't even exist yet. :tongue:

Yeah, strange isnt it. :rolleyes: Thats why I said the Ottomens were not turks, glad we are now in aggreement. :approve:

I was thinking France, Western Germany, Britain, and Japan. Obviously they weren't better off than they were before the war, but neither were they irreparably harmed.

So alright to you is, "not irreparably harmed"? Great, least we not forget eh?

Yonoz

Jul22-06, 08:41 AM

The last time Hizbullah tried kidnapping soldiers was November of last year. The events are very similar to the ones that started this conflict. Israel appealed to the UNSC, and unfortunately all they did was issue this statement (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sc8563.doc.htm):The members of the Security Council received a briefing on 21 November 2005 from the Department of Peacekeeping Operations on the serious incidents along the Blue Line on that day.

The members of the Council expressed deep concern about the hostilities, which were initiated by Hizbollah from the Lebanese side, and which quickly spread along the entire Blue Line. They regretted the resulting casualties on both sides.

They appealed to all parties to respect the Blue Line in its entirety, to exercise utmost restraint and to refrain from any action that could further escalate the situation.

They reiterated their call on the Government of Lebanon to extend its authority and to exert its monopoly over the use of force all over its territory in accordance with Security Council resolutions.

Yonoz

Jul22-06, 08:49 AM

Now specificly, when and what was the last valid effort Israel made to resolve the problem of Hezbollah by working with UN or UNIFIL officals?Finally found it: May 30th, 2006 - Israel informs the Secretary General about the firing of Katyusha rockets by Hizbullah into northern Israel from Lebanese territory ; Identical letters to the Secretary General and the President of the Security Council. (http://www.israel-un.org/latest/sg_letters/2006/gillerman30may06.htm)Excellency,

It is with great dismay that yet another terrorist attack has been perpetrated against the citizens of Israel. Over the weekend, the Hizbullah terrorist organization fired eight Katyusha rockets deep into northern Israel from Lebanese territory, wounding an Israeli soldier and resulting in an extensive exchange of fire along the Lebanese border.

We hold not only the government of Lebanon fully responsible for all terrorist activity emanating from within its territory, but also hold responsible the governments of Iran and Syria for harboring, financing, nurturing, and supporting Hizbullah and other terrorist organizations.

Israel urges the United Nations and the Government of Lebanon to ensure that all obligations as set out in Security Council resolutions 425, 1559, and 1680 are fulfilled. The time has come for the sovereign Government of Lebanon to extend its control over all of its territory and disband Hizbullah and other terrorist organizations.

Excellency, I submit the present letter in follow-up to an oral complaint lodged on Sunday, 28 May 2006.

I should be grateful if you would arrange to have the text of the present letter distributed as a document of the General Assembly, under agenda items 108, “Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism,” and 14, “The Situation in the Middle East.” An identical letter has been submitted to H.E. Mr. Basile Ikouebe, President of the Security Council.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Yours truly,

Ambassador Dan Gillerman
Permanent Representative of Israel

Cyrus

Jul22-06, 09:43 AM

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/scp_v3/viewer/index.php?pid=16598&rn=49750&cl=610896&ch=49799&src=news.yahoo.com

Yonoz, I suggest you look at your own media with a grain of salt

Lately it seems the Israel Defense Forces spokeswoman is sometimes assuming the role of chief censor. The spokeswoman, Brigadier General Miri Regev, has been interviewed by all of the television channels and has spoken out against what she considers overly explosive coverage of the rocket landing sites. The TV newspeople do not understand her consternation.

"After all, a representative of the [IDF] censor is always sitting in the studio," said a senior source at Channel 10, "and he approves the broadcast of what Regev opposes."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/740447.html

How do we know how many civlians are being killed, how many hezbollah? If the stat's are coming from Israel, I highly doubt they reflect the true numbers.

To Hurkyl and Anttech: enough about the turks what does it have to do with this thread?

kyleb

Jul22-06, 10:22 AM

I think Syria would be very happy seeing as a NATO force could never achieve such a mission.
And if NATO offered up a force that could?

Wow and I thought you have a problem with everything Israel does...
Seriously though, do you honestly think we're so happy to go to war we haven't done everything to avoid it? My 2 younger brothers are risking their lives right now, and I may be called to reserve service at any moment, do you think my family is happy about this?
Yes please, seriously, you missrepersenting my position doesn't help. I think you "waited enough for Hizbullah's weapons", just as you said you did, instead of actively making an honest effort to remove have Hezbollah remove from the boarder prior to.

Yes, and as you can see I'm acting on the matter. You can also return to Hurkyl's appeasement list if you're looking for signs of goodwill by Israel to end it.
Hurkyl's list doesn't present the offer you termed "fair" and Peace Now isn't promoting that offer either. I agree with you that the green line would be fair, but again Israel has shown no intention of making such a fair offer so of course the Palestinians aren't giving you a sincere response.

Yonoz

Jul22-06, 10:56 AM

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/scp_v3/viewer/index.php?pid=16598&rn=49750&cl=610896&ch=49799&src=news.yahoo.com

Yonoz, I suggest you look at your own media with a grain of saltI am. Rereading my post I see I haven't clarified that point. I suppose it was lost in there since I was also trying to convey the relative poorness of the 2 foreign news channels I receive. To me their coverage seems amateur and shallow. I feel I get a much richer picture, for better or for worse, from the Israeli channels.
I don't care much for that 60-minutes reporter. They interviewed her a few months ago on one of the current affairs shows, she spoke to the Israeli interviewer like he was retarded or deaf...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/740447.htmlAh yes, that terrible Miri Regev. I've had a brief personal encounter with her back when I was a regular. I have no idea how she made it to this rank and posting. She's one of those people that are so afraid to take risks they do a terrible job, but since they don't make any real mistakes the only way to get rid of them is to promote them. There's a lot of that in the military. I think she's doing a terrible job and the sooner she's removed the better. She's dumb as a bell, too. Touche.

How do we know how many civlians are being killed, how many hezbollah? If the stat's are coming from Israel, I highly doubt they reflect the true numbers.I highly doubt any statistics at this stage, you can read that in my previous posts.

Yonoz

Jul22-06, 11:10 AM

And if NATO offered up a force that could?I think we disagree whether such a force is possible. I don't think they can, and Israel's experience with "peacekeeping" forces is terrible. UNIFIL soldiers aided Hizbullah in the 2000 kidnapping, and the UN and UNIFIL lied about the presence of a mysterious video recording of the kidnapping, shot by UNIFIL troops. Israel was never handed that tape and Israeli delegates were only allowed to watch it under limiting terms. We don't want another UNIFIL on our hands, thank you very much.

Yes please, seriously, you missrepersenting my position doesn't help. I think you "waited enough for Hizbullah's weapons", just as you said you did, instead of actively making an honest effort to remove have Hezbollah remove from the boarder prior to.I think Israel made an honest effort. Apart from repeated appeals to the UNSC and UNGC I don't see much more it could have done.

Hurkyl's list doesn't present the offer you termed "fair" and Peace Now isn't promoting that offer either. I agree with you that the green line would be fair, but again Israel has shown no intention of making such a fair offer so of course the Palestinians aren't giving you a sincere response.All Israel can do at this stage is make an offer that would get Hamas to the table. Then, Hamas will demand more - what will Israel do then? Negotiations don't start and end with a single offer. Israel has made more than fair offers to the Palestinians numerous times and every time they continued the terrorism. Israel's policy is that it does not negotiate with those actively participating in terrorism. I think that it's only fair to demand the cessation of terrorism and recognition of our right to exist before beginning negotiations. Then a broader agreement can be reached.

kyleb

Jul22-06, 12:37 PM

I think we disagree whether such a force is possible. I don't think they can, and Israel's experience with "peacekeeping" forces is terrible. UNIFIL soldiers aided Hizbullah in the 2000 kidnapping, and the UN and UNIFIL lied about the presence of a mysterious video recording of the kidnapping, shot by UNIFIL troops. Israel was never handed that tape and Israeli delegates were only allowed to watch it under limiting terms. We don't want another UNIFIL on our hands, thank you very much.

1) Proof UNIFL peacekeepers aided the capture?

2) They UNIFL was tasked to defend the boarder, not to disarm Hezbollah.

I think Israel made an honest effort. Apart from repeated appeals to the UNSC and UNGC I don't see much more it could have done.

An honest effort would have been for Israel either directly though the UN, or though one of her allies, to request an international force tasked with carrying out the disarmament of both foreign and Lebanese militias along the boarder as agreed to in UN1559. That is how diplomacy works to get international involvement to resolve a problem. Waiting for enough for Hezbollah's weapons to be used instead of making that honest effort is what has your two younger brothers out risking their lives in this war.

All Israel can do at this stage is make an offer that would get Hamas to the table. Then, Hamas will demand more - what will Israel do then? Negotiations don't start and end with a single offer. Israel has made more than fair offers to the Palestinians numerous times and every time they continued the terrorism. Israel's policy is that it does not negotiate with those actively participating in terrorism. I think that it's only fair to demand the cessation of terrorism and recognition of our right to exist before beginning negotiations. Then a broader agreement can be reached.
You said the green line is far, I agree; so when did Israel ever show the intention to make that fair offer, let alone more?

Bystander

Jul22-06, 01:32 PM

(snip)An honest effort would have been for Israel either directly though the UN, or though one of her allies, should have been requesting an international force tasked with carrying out the disarmament of both foreign and Lebanese militias along the boarder as agreed to in UN1559. That is how diplomacy works to get international involvement to resolve a problem. Waiting for enough for Hezbollah's weapons to be used instead of making that honest effort is what has your two younger brothers out risking their lives in this war.
(snip)

An "honest effort" is for Arab governments and Islamic militants to comply with UN resolutions. Your insistence that the Israelis force the UN to force compliance with resolutions is absurd.

kyleb

Jul22-06, 01:40 PM

I didn't say "force the UN," I said "request."

Bystander

Jul22-06, 02:56 PM

Yonoz has listed request after request after request for you; those "requests" don't seem to have been good enough. What are you demanding that the Israelis do to get Arab governments to comply with UN resolutions? The historical record is that Arab governments do not comply with UN resolutions at anything other than gun-point, and the UN simply will not take that step in the mid-east --- they have restricted "peacekeeping" activities to little more than providing blue-helmeted (or bereted) "shrubbery" decorating roadsides and border crossings (occasionally used for target practice).

Yonoz

Jul22-06, 03:58 PM

Proof UNIFL peacekeepers aided the capture?A UNIFIL officer admitted it in an interview to an Israeli newspaper.

They UNIFL was tasked to defend the boarder, not to disarm Hezbollah....and has failed even at that task.

An honest effort would have been for Israel either directly though the UN, or though one of her allies, to request an international force tasked with carrying out the disarmament of both foreign and Lebanese militias along the boarder as agreed to in UN1559. That is how diplomacy works to get international involvement to resolve a problem. Waiting for enough for Hezbollah's weapons to be used instead of making that honest effort is what has your two younger brothers out risking their lives in this war.I'll quote the relevant part since you seem unable to find it:Israel urges the United Nations and the Government of Lebanon to ensure that all obligations as set out in Security Council resolutions 425, 1559, and 1680 are fulfilled.
BTW, that's some wonderful logic there. So Israel is guilty of Hizbullah attacking it now. I guess it's all part of some grand conspiracy.

You said the green line is far, I agree; so when did Israel ever show the intention to make that fair offer, let alone more?More? So now you want more than a fair offer? And you want Israel to offer it to someone who does not even stop attacking its civilians? This is why it's never offered UNTIL THE NEGOTIATION ACTUALLY BEGINS. Get it into your head.

Yonoz

Jul22-06, 04:15 PM

No to Syria, Iran agents (http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/opinion/view.asp?msgID=1242) - Ahmed Al-Jarallah, Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times:
People of Arab countries, especially the Lebanese and Palestinians, have been held hostage for a long time in the name of “resisting Israel.” Arab governments have been caught between political obligations and public opinion leading to more corruption in politics and economics. Forgetting the interests of their own countries the Hamas Movement and Hezbollah have gone to the extent of representing the interests of Iran and Syrian in their countries. These organizations have become the representatives of Syria and Iran without worrying about the consequences of their action.
...
While the people of Palestine and Lebanon are paying the price of this bloody conflict, the main players, who caused this conflict, are living in peace and asking for more oil from Arab countries to support the facade of resisting Israel. With the Palestinian Authority close to collapse and the Lebanese government beginning to give up responsibility for what is happening in its territory, Saudi Arabia has been forced to come out of its diplomatic routine and indirectly hold Hezbollah responsible for what is happening Lebanon.
...
Unfortunately we must admit that in such a war the only way to get rid of “these irregular phenomena” is what Israel is doing. The operations of Israel in Gaza and Lebanon are in the interest of people of Arab countries and the international community.

fargoth

Jul22-06, 04:54 PM

1) You said the green line is far, I agree; so when did Israel ever show the intention to make that fair offer, let alone more?
here you go:

According to Ross's summary, (and as published in the Bridging proposals) Clinton's proposal gave the Palestinians about 97% of the territory of the West Bank and sovereignty over their airspace. Refugees could not return to Israel without Israeli consent. An international force would remain in the Jordan valley for six years, replacing the IDF. Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem and the Haram as Sharif (temple mount) would be incorporated into Palestine. Saudi Arabian ambassador Prince Bandar Ibn Sultan said, "If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won't be a tragedy, it will be a crime." (Ross, The Missing Peace, 2004, p.748).

The Israeli government met on December 27 and accepted the proposals with reservations, which according to Ross, were "within the parameters." The Palestinians equivocated. The deadline passed, and no definitive Palestinian reply was forthcoming.

and the negotiations were only about the west bank because Israel accepted to withdraw completely from the gaza strip.

so, 97% of the west bank, and all of gaza strip... sounds like a fair offer to me, and bilal (our palestinian friend) said it sounds fair to him too when i asked him a while ago when hamas was ellected.

you can take a look at the map if you wish... http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/fmeptaba1.gif

just wanted to make sure you got your facts right...

Do you think it's a fair offer to ask us to propose this map again just to get the negotaition started?

Astronuc

Jul22-06, 07:38 PM

Fighting Intensifies Along Lebanon-Israel Border
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5575820
by Debbie Elliott, Eric Westervelt and Ivan Watson
All Things Considered, July 22, 2006 · Israeli tanks and hundreds of troops moved in and out of Lebanon on the 11th day of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah militants. Israel says its ground incursions into Lebanon are not the beginning of a full-scale invasion.

During the fighting on Saturday, Israeli forces took control of the Lebanese village of Maroun al-Ras. Israel says it has been a center of Hezbollah guerrilla activity.

Israeli attacks did not stop Hezbollah militants from firing more than 150 rockets into Israel. The attacks injured 17 Israelis.

At the same time, Lebanese civilians are evacuating the south in large numbers.

Lebanese College Students View Conflict from U.S.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5575823

Week in Review: Crisis in the Middle East
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5575287

Israel Hints at More Land Combat in Lebanon
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5572453

Syria Seeks to Assert Importance in Middle East
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5575269

I think it would be impossible to try a diplomatic resolution at the moment. Both sides seem determined to try military conflict. Of course, if Hizbullah were to give the two kidnapped Israeli soldiers to a neutral third party, that would be a start, and probably the only way a diplomatic process could be initiated. Hizbullah is apparently not interested, and Israel cannot negotiate with terrorists and militant organizations.

abdo375

Jul22-06, 11:45 PM

Israel cannot negotiate with terrorists and militant organizations.

Since when is resisting occupation a terrorist act ?

Gokul43201

Jul23-06, 12:03 AM

Since when is resisting occupation a terrorist act ?Since the time that it involved targeting civilians in bomb attacks. Buses, cafes, marketplaces...these are not strategic targets; they are the targets of terrorists.

Heck, virtually everyone in the world agrees that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Cyrus

Jul23-06, 12:16 AM

Actually, only the US and Israel consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Hamas is in palestine, not Lebanon.

Edit: Excuse me, and by Canada and Uk.

But not by the EU.

Cyrus

Jul23-06, 12:29 AM

Hizbullah is apparently not interested, and Israel cannot negotiate with terrorists and militant organizations.

That's not true, not at all.

The former President of the German intelligence service BND, August Hanning, during the press conference in Beirut, regarding the German negotiated prisoner exchange between Israel and Hezbollah. January 30, 2004 see also Elchanan Tenenbaum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
or
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/29/prisoner.exchange/

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has confirmed publicly, for the first time, that negotiations are underway with the Hezbollah in Lebanon for an exchange of prisoners.
http://www.bakutoday.net/view.php?d=6306

Sneh was commenting on various reports, mostly from Lebanon, of progress in negotiations with the Shi'ite guerrilla group Hezbollah that could lead to an exchange of the Israelis for 19 Arabs held by Israel.

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/15113/edition_id/294/format/html/displaystory.html

Of course, if Hizbullah were to give the two kidnapped Israeli soldiers to a neutral third party, that would be a start, and probably the only way a diplomatic process could be initiated.

If they did that, they would be giving up their only bargaining chip. Even if they did release the prisoners, that would not stop Israel from bombing them. Israel has even said this themselves, so I see no reason why it would be in their interests to do so.

Yonoz

Jul23-06, 01:19 AM

That's not true, not at all
...
If they did that, they would be giving up their only bargaining chip. - and so they are not interested.
Even if they did release the prisoners, that would not stop Israel from bombing them. Israel has even said this themselves, so I see no reason why it would be in their interests to do so.If the soldiers are released, Hizbullah is disarmed and the Lebanese military deploys in South Lebanon, then Israel will stop its campaign.
Hizbullah can still exist, just not as a paramilitary force. Of course, then they would lose a lot of Iranian and Syrian support.

desA

Jul23-06, 01:39 AM

So, if Hizbollah is *not* a terrorist organisation, then why is it shooting rockets into Israel, under no provocation, other than the existence of the State of Israel?

Mickey

Jul23-06, 01:45 AM

So, if Hizbollah is *not* a terrorist organisation, then why is it shooting rockets into Israel, under no provocation, other than the existence of the State of Israel?

Because it thinks that Israel is a terrorist state or some such.

It's the Narn and the Centauri. The Shadows are manipulating one of them, preparing for their final assault, and we've got to find out if some of the Ancients are still around to help us fight the coming darkness.

kyleb

Jul23-06, 03:30 AM

A UNIFIL officer admitted it in an interview to an Israeli newspaper.
We have this rule here that says to making claims like that you need to be able to back them up. Eluding to proof doesn't cut it.

...and has failed even at that task.
Less than perfection isn't failure, it is reality.

I'll quote the relevant part since you seem unable to find it:
BTW, that's some wonderful logic there. So Israel is guilty of Hizbullah attacking it now. I guess it's all part of some grand conspiracy.
Israel is guilty of what you said, sitting back and waiting.

All Israel can do at this stage is make an offer that would get Hamas to the table. Then, Hamas will demand more - what will Israel do then? Negotiations don't start and end with a single offer. Israel has made more than fair offers to the Palestinians numerous times and every time they continued the terrorism. Israel's policy is that it does not negotiate with those actively participating in terrorism. I think that it's only fair to demand the cessation of terrorism and recognition of our right to exist before beginning negotiations. Then a broader agreement can be reached.

You said the green line is far, I agree; so when did Israel ever show the intention to make that fair offer, let alone more?

More? So now you want more than a fair offer? And you want Israel to offer it to someone who does not even stop attacking its civilians? This is why it's never offered UNTIL THE NEGOTIATION ACTUALLY BEGINS. Get it into your head.
You are the one that said "more than fair offers"; now you want to chastise me for asking for elaboration on your claim? Negotiation doesn't work with less than fair offers.

Yonoz

Jul23-06, 03:46 AM

Less than perfection isn't failure, it is reality.Oh please. Why don't you bear the burden of proof this time and show me one instance where UNIFIL has stopped aggression.

Israel is guilty of what you said, sitting back and waiting.I've shown you several examples of Israel appealing to the UN to uphold UNSC resolutions calling for the disarmament of Hizbullah.

You are the one that said "more than fair offers"; now you want to chastise me for asking for elaboration on your claim? Negotiation doesn't work with less than fair offers.You can refer to Fargoth's post (http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1043650&postcount=344) for elaboration. If both sides made fair offers at the start there would be no need for need for negotiations, no?

Astronuc

Jul23-06, 07:40 AM

Since when is resisting occupation a terrorist act ? Israel had withdrawn from Lebanon. When Hizbullah attacked, Israel was not occupying Lebanese territory. Maybe, Hizbullah is claiming that the Israelis are occupying Israel?

Cyrus, I agree with your post that Hizbullah has, in the past, negotiated a settlement. But what about the current situation?

If they did that, they would be giving up their only bargaining chip. Even if they did release the prisoners, that would not stop Israel from bombing them. Israel has even said this themselves, so I see no reason why it would be in their interests to do so. AFAIK, Israel was not bombing Hizbullah. Hizbullah attacked Israel and kidnapped two soldiers. What was the provocation?

What is the mentality of a person who conducts acts of violence/hostility and then expects the victim to respond cordially???

I do have a big problem with the fact that some people feel compelled to kidnap other people and use them as 'barter', 'pawns', _________ (fill in the term of choice for the demeaning or degradation of a human life). :frown:

Cyrus

Jul23-06, 08:58 AM

I've shown you several examples of Israel appealing to the UN to uphold UNSC resolutions calling for the disarmament of Hizbullah.

Two months ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel surprised many when he announced that his government would accept the 1978 U.N. resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Lebanon.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/lebwith.html

So, does the UN only apply when Israel wants it to? I guess UNSC425 does not apply to Israel?

Yonoz

Jul23-06, 09:26 AM

So, does the UN only apply when Israel wants it to? I guess UNSC425 does not apply to Israel?What's your point? kyleb asked me to present the Israeli appeals to the UN to avoid this crisis. Now you're criticizing that too? Do you think Israel should have sat quietly while Hizbullah arms itself and attacks it?
Whatever path Israel takes, it will always be blamed, even when it is being attacked. Perhaps you should ask yourself what are the real reasons for your criticism.

Gokul43201

Jul23-06, 09:51 AM

Actually, only the US and Israel consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Hamas is in palestine, not Lebanon.

Edit: Excuse me, and by Canada and Uk.I hadn't read Astronuc's complete post that was partly quoted by abdo. I thought he was refering to Hamas because of his argument about resisting occupation.

How does that argument apply to Hizbullah? Israel does no0t occupy any part of southern Lebanon anymore. There is nothing for Hizbullah to resist! But I know only a little about the history and nature of Hizbullah.

If they did that, they would be giving up their only bargaining chip.What are they bargaining for? The end of some illegal occupation or the release of imprisoned militants? To the best of my knowledge, Israel is not an occupier as far as any Hizbullah controlled territory is involved. Ergo, Hizbullah is not (today) resisting any occupation. So, for abdo to say so is setting up a strawman (unless I'm mistaken, and Israel has not completely pulled out of Lebanon).

Gokul43201

Jul23-06, 09:57 AM

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/lebwith.html

So, does the UN only apply when Israel wants it to? I guess UNSC425 does not apply to Israel?Perhaps my history is lacking. Didn't Israel completely pull out of southern Lebanon in accordance with UNSC425?

Astronuc

Jul23-06, 10:08 AM

I didn't specifically call Hizbullah a terrorist organization. I used a combined prepositional object 'terrorists and militant organizations'. Hizbullah is certainly militant and elects (their choice) to use violence rather than peaceful means to achieve a political objective.

I also think the term 'terrorist' is often used 'subjectively' and sometimes inconsistent.

I think a lot of the arguments being made involve digression into the entire problem of Israel, it's existence as a political state, the consequences regarding the Palestinians, and who is to blame or not, and so on . . .

We aren't going to resolve this problem in this thread.

Stopping all violence would go a long way, but many people seem to be invested in hurting other people (seemingly out of retaliation, retribution, . . . ).

--------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile -

U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis
By DAVID S. CLOUD and HELENE COOPER, NY Times, July 22, 2006
The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which some military officers see as a sign of a longer campaign ahead.

U.S. Faces Limited Diplomatic Options in Mideast
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5572456
Morning Edition, July 21, 2006 · Judith Palmer Harik, a retired political science professor at the American University of Beirut, assesses U.S. diplomatic options in the region. She tells John Ydstie that few officials in the Middle East are willing to reign in Hezbollah, or have the influence to do so.

Israeli Forces Clash with Hezbollah Inside Lebanon
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5575263
Weekend Edition - Saturday, July 22, 2006 · Israeli forces confronted Hezbollah guerillas inside Lebanon on Saturday with limited but fierce engagements. At the same time, both sides continued trading aerial bombardments on the conflict's 11th day.
------------------------------------------------

A story today has mentioned the rising tension between Suni and Shiia nations.

Yonoz

Jul23-06, 10:13 AM

If anyone requires further proof that Israel has done its best to avoid this conflict: Israel Returns Hezbollah Remains (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/25/world/main1075642.shtml):
The return of the bodies comes as the U.N. Security Council accused Hezbollah of starting this week's attacks. In a statement on Wednesday, the council appealed for restraint.

But Lebanon's government, of which Hezbollah is a coalition partner, backed the guerrillas despite the international pressure.

Cyrus

Jul23-06, 11:33 AM

Perhaps my history is lacking. Didn't Israel completely pull out of southern Lebanon in accordance with UNSC425?

The resolution was passed in 1978, they withdrew in 2000 only because the occupation was not going so well.

Cyrus

Jul23-06, 11:43 AM

What's your point? kyleb asked me to present the Israeli appeals to the UN to avoid this crisis. Now you're criticizing that too? Do you think Israel should have sat quietly while Hizbullah arms itself and attacks it?
Whatever path Israel takes, it will always be blamed, even when it is being attacked. Perhaps you should ask yourself what are the real reasons for your criticism.

My point is that Israel too, has not played by the rules. You complain about Hezbollah launching rockets into Israel, and rightly so, as a reason for your actions.

Does Hezbollah not have that same right when you occupied their land for 22 years, without UN support?

Why should they sit there without a ready force, when Israel can, at a moments notice, attack them again without UN support? Of course they are going to arm themselves.

I am just putting some perspective so this is not so one sided. Israel has its hands dirty as well.

Yonoz

Jul23-06, 12:20 PM

Does Hezbollah not have that same right when you occupied their land for 22 years, without UN support?Hizbullah is not the Lebanese defence force. In its current form it has no place in a sovereign country. The Israeli occupation ended 6 years ago. Hizbullah has initiated attacks on Israeli civilians and military targets on Israeli soil countless times since then. By your logic no conflict can ever end. You're also forgetting there's one more country that has occupied Lebanon and was removed after assasinating an elected Lebanese head of state. I don't see anyone firing rockets on their civilians. I think you should take Hizbullah's declarations with a grain, or perhaps even an entire bag of salt.

Why should they sit there without a ready force, when Israel can, at a moments notice, attack them again with UN support? Of course they are going to arm themselves.It is not Hizbullah's role to defend Lebanon (nor is it really doing that, rather the opposite), it is the Lebanese government that should do this and it has a full fledged military to accomplish that task. Israel is actually demanding that the Lebanese military be deployed across the border.

I am just putting some perspective so this is not so one sided. Israel has its hands dirty as well.That's good but I think you should examine every party's motives with a little more scrutiny. Astronuc has posted some insightful interviews a few pages back, I suggest you listen to them and do some research.

fargoth

Jul23-06, 12:35 PM

Does Hezbollah not have that same right when you occupied their land for 22 years, without UN support?

Why should they sit there without a ready force, when Israel can, at a moments notice, attack them again without UN support?

so you think it's still Hizbullah's right to launch rockets on israel civilians and capture israeli soldiers even after israel has withdrawn from lebanon? (which they occupide only to stop the fire in the first place by the way...)

can you explain to me, why does a militia group has a right to exist inside a country and attack another country's civilians?
don't you think the use of "defend themeselves" is a little misleading here?
and don't you think lebanon's army should defend lebanon, and not some aggressive organization which took over southern lebanon?

kyleb

Jul23-06, 12:59 PM

Oh please. Why don't you bear the burden of proof this time and show me one instance where UNIFIL has stopped aggression.
You are the one who claimed they failed, which puts a huge burdon of proof on you to show their guard doesn't stop any majorty of illegal boarder crossing.

I've shown you several examples of Israel appealing to the UN to uphold UNSC resolutions calling for the disarmament of Hizbullah.
And in doing so you have effectively admitted that Isarel did not pursue reasonable means to remove Hezbollah prior to this attack. What you showed was Israel signing on to statements that the job wasn't getting done rather than presenting a plan for the job to get done.

You can refer to Fargoth's post (http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1043650&postcount=344) for elaboration. If both sides made fair offers at the start there would be no need for need for negotiations, no?
Fair offers are needed to start negotiations, from there good negotiations can lead to both sides coming to an agreement that they find more than fair. The contentious lowballing with no displayed intent to ever make a fair offer is what is keeping such an agreement from being reached.

kyleb

Jul23-06, 01:14 PM

It is not Hizbullah's role to defend Lebanon (nor is it really doing that, rather the opposite), it is the Lebanese government that should do this and it has a full fledged military to accomplish that task.
As if, the Lebanese millatary has been in desperate need of help:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060303-lebanon-military.htm

Hurkyl

Jul23-06, 01:18 PM

I am just putting some perspective so this is not so one sided. Israel has its hands dirty as well.
What sort of perspective were you going for? Were you just trying to remind us of the militants' attitudes, or arguing that this really is part of the bigger picture?

Hurkyl

Jul23-06, 01:26 PM

It is not Hizbullah's role to defend Lebanon (nor is it really doing that, rather the opposite), it is the Lebanese government that should do this and it has a full fledged military to accomplish that task.As if, the Lebanese millatary has been in desperate need of help:
Are you responding to "it has a full fledged military to accomplish that task", or "It is not Hizbullah's role to defend Lebanon ... it is the Lebanese government that should do this"?

Yonoz

Jul23-06, 01:34 PM

You are the one who claimed they failed, which puts a huge burdon of proof on you to show their guard doesn't stop any majorty of illegal boarder crossing.I've shown that they failed to prevent at least 3 major escalations. That's 3/3, which is pretty much a failure in my book. If you wish to contend that, all I ask is that you find one single instance in which UNIFIL has done anything short of failure. Just one. Should prove an easy task.

And in doing so you have effectively admitted that Isarel did not pursue reasonable means to remove Hezbollah prior to this attack. What you showed was Israel signing on to statements that the job wasn't getting done rather than presenting a plan for the job to get done.Perhaps Israel should also supply the troops with uniforms, weapons and training?
Please do some research before making silly claims like that, Israel is not the executive branch of the United Nations, and has no authority nor responsibility for planning multinational forces - there's plenty of overpaid UN personnel that are meant to come up with a plan. Since you expect me to spoon-feed you with basic research to support each and every sentence, here it is straight from the horse's mouth (0.5 seconds on google):
From the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/)Article 37
2. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.

Fair offers are needed to start negotiations, from there good negotiations can lead to both sides coming to an agreement that they find more than fair. The contentious lowballing with no displayed intent to ever make a fair offer is what is keeping such an agreement from being reached.That's been covered already, and you seem to conveniently ignore the facts that Israel has made some widely recognised genuinely generous offers, as well as unilateral withdrawls and acts of good faith and in return the other parties never ceased to undermine Israel's right to exist in peace by actively pursuing terrorism against its civilians.

Yonoz

Jul23-06, 01:37 PM

As if, the Lebanese millatary has been in desperate need of help:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060303-lebanon-military.htm
I fail to see how you've come to that conclusion from the article. Have you even read it?
FYI the Lebanese military commanders have attended the finest military schools in Europe.

Cyrus

Jul23-06, 01:39 PM

Hizbullah is not the Lebanese defence force. In its current form it has no place in a sovereign country. The Israeli occupation ended 6 years ago. Hizbullah has initiated attacks on Israeli civilians and military targets on Israeli soil countless times since then. By your logic no conflict can ever end. You're also forgetting there's one more country that has occupied Lebanon and was removed after assasinating an elected Lebanese head of state. I don't see anyone firing rockets on their civilians. I think you should take Hizbullah's declarations with a grain, or perhaps even an entire bag of salt. It is not Hizbullah's role to defend Lebanon (nor is it really doing that, rather the opposite), it is the Lebanese government that should do this and it has a full fledged military to accomplish that task. Israel is actually demanding that the Lebanese military be deployed across the border.

Sure, I agree that Hezbollah is not their defense force and that the Lebanese government should play that role. But the Lebanese military simply does not have that capability. So without Hezbollah, who is going to stand up to defend the country? There in lies one of the problems with Israel's solution, they want to leave Lebanon practically defenseless.

That's good but I think you should examine every party's motives with a little more scrutiny. Astronuc has posted some insightful interviews a few pages back, I suggest you listen to them and do some research.

Trust me, I do. I am not for support of Hezbollah, but at the same time I wont stand here before you and say that Israel has always done it's best to find peace. It has not.

What sort of perspective were you going for? Were you just trying to remind us of the militants' attitudes, or arguing that this really is part of the bigger picture?

Eh?

Yonoz

Jul23-06, 01:54 PM

Sure, I agree that Hezbollah is not their defense force and that the Lebanese government should play that role. But the Lebanese military simply does not have that capability. So without Hezbollah, who is going to stand up to defend the country? There in lies one of the problems with Israel's solution, they want to leave Lebanon practically defenseless.That's highly flawed reasoning. If I decide my military isn't strong enough, can I buy rockets and launch them at civilian targets without provocation? No, that's my government's role. Israel shouldn't pay the price for the Lebanese government's internal affairs. Furthermore, Israel has no interest to attack Lebanon out of the blue - I'm not sure you're in on this little secret so I'm letting you know now.

Trust me, I do.It certainly doesn't seem so.
I am not for support of Hezbollah, but at the same time I wont stand here before you and say that Israel has always done it's best to find peace. It has not.You're pretty much legitimizing Hizbullah's terrorist attack. I never said Israel has always done it's best to find peace, but as far as this conflict is concerned, I'm convinced it has.

Cyrus

Jul23-06, 02:03 PM

That's highly flawed reasoning. If I decide my military isn't strong enough, can I buy rockets and launch them at civilian targets without provocation? No, that's my government's role. Israel shouldn't pay the price for the Lebanese government's internal affairs. Furthermore, Israel has no interest to attack Lebanon out of the blue - I'm not sure you're in on this little secret so I'm letting you know now.

What!? No, I never said they could buy rockets and launch them at civilan targets! Far from it, they have no right to do that. And for that reason, as I said before, I have no problem with Israel acting in response. I just do not like the method they chose to use.

It certainly doesn't seem so.
You're pretty much legitimizing Hizbullah's terrorist attack. I never said Israel has always done it's best to find peace, but as far as this conflict is concerned, I'm convinced it has.

Again, when did I ever say their attacks were acceptable? I never said such a thing, and I'd appreciate it if you not put words in my mouth.

As for this conflict, bombing civilian buildings is not the best way to achieve peace, no?

Edit: Perhaps I was not clear. I was saying that Hezbollah is the only real force to defend Lebanon. Their military can do some, but not a whole heck of a lot. That's not the same thing as saying Hezbollah can launch offensive attacks.

kyleb

Jul23-06, 02:05 PM

I've shown that they failed to prevent at least 3 major escalations. That's 3/3, which is pretty much a failure in my book. If you wish to contend that, all I ask is that you find one single instance in which UNIFIL has done anything short of failure. Just one. Should prove an easy task.
Sure, a quick Google search makes it an easy task; old examples they are are, but 150 strong in showing that the UNIFIL's job involves much more than the 3 instances you criticize them for:
...UNIFIL stopped some 40 major infiltration attempts, involving 140 terrorists. By contrast, paragraph 36 of the Secretary-General's report for the period from June to December 1979, document S/13691 of 14 December 1979, mentions 110 infiltration attempts involving almost 800 terrorists...
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/HomePage2.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fmfa&NRNODEGUID=%7bD40B3D66-BC12-4C5A-8B40-5732F02635A0%7d&NRCACHEHINT=Guest
Perhaps Israel should also supply the troops with uniforms, weapons and training?
Please do some research before making silly claims like that, Israel is not the executive branch of the United Nations, and has no authority nor responsibility for planning multinational forces - there's plenty of overpaid UN personnel that are meant to come up with a plan. Since you expect me to spoon-feed you with basic research to support each and every sentence, here it is straight from the horse's mouth (0.5 seconds on google):
From the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/)
I said a plan. The UN charter doesn't restrict you from presenting a plan, and a plan is what could have went towards preventing this current conflict.

That's been covered already, and you seem to conveniently ignore the facts that Israel has made some widely recognised genuinely generous offers, as well as unilateral withdrawls and acts of good faith...
I'm standing by the fact that the widely reported "generous offers" are less that what you claimed and I agreed is fair.

...and in return the other parties never ceased to undermine Israel's right to exist in peace by actively pursuing terrorism against its civilians.
Not just the other parties, your continuing occupation and expansion undermines the Palestinian right to exist and you have some extremists on your side who engage in terrorism on Palestinian civilians as well.

kyleb

Jul23-06, 02:15 PM

I fail to see how you've come to that conclusion from the article. Have you even read it?
Ahem:
"The larger question is: Who is their enemy? Are they looking at Israel? Al-Qaida? Syria? ... In our minds, this is the army that sooner or later will have to stand up to the armed branch of Hezbollah. ... And right now, it's a military (whose equipment) may be too large and too heavily armored for the threats around them," Kimmitt said.
As I said, they weren't in the postion to deal with the problem.

Yonoz

Jul23-06, 02:36 PM

What!? No, I never said they could buy rockets and launch them at civilan targets! Far from it, they have no right to do that. And for that reason, as I said before, I have no problem with Israel acting in response. I just do not like the method they chose to use.

Again, when did I ever say their attacks were acceptable? I never said such a thing, and I'd appreciate it if you not put words in my mouth.Then what did you mean by this:Does Hezbollah not have that same right when you occupied their land for 22 years, without UN support?

As for this conflict, bombing civilian buildings is not the best way to achieve peace, no?It is if there are weapons hidden inside those buildings that will be used to attack civilians.

Edit: Perhaps I was not clear. I was saying that Hezbollah is the only real force to defend Lebanon. Their military can do some, but not a whole heck of a lot. That's not the same thing as saying Hezbollah can launch offensive attacks.The only thing needed to disarm Hizbullah is a decision by the Lebanese government that it will not allow anyone to hijack its decision making. The world will be more than happy to help them.

Cyrus

Jul23-06, 02:55 PM

Ah, perhaps that is not clear.

Does Hezbollah not have that same right when you occupied their land for 22 years, without UN support?

They have the same right to stand up and defend their homeland. Note, I said to defend, not to go out and start wars.

It is if there are weapons hidden inside those buildings that will be used to attack civilians.

Well, I for one would like to see these weapons. So far, I have only seen peoples houses being destroyed.

The only thing needed to disarm Hizbullah is a decision by the Lebanese government that it will not allow anyone to hijack its decision making. The world will be more than happy to help them.

Sure, I agree with you on that.

Gokul43201

Jul23-06, 03:17 PM

The resolution was passed in 1978, they withdrew in 2000 only because the occupation was not going so well.Oh, I agree - and I've said this before - that the UN has been way lax in holding Israel's feet to the fire. But they've been way lax with holding anyone's feet to the fire. :rolleyes:

Yonoz

Jul23-06, 03:29 PM

Sure, a quick Google search makes it an easy task; old examples they are are, but 150 strong in showing that the UNIFIL's job involves much more than the 3 instances you criticize them forPerhaps they were relevant back in 1980, the year that document saw light. Hizbullah was 2 years old back then. I still contend that they're irrelevant today.

I said a plan. The UN charter doesn't restrict you from presenting a plan, and a plan is what could have went towards preventing this current conflict.You fail to see the point. UN peacekeeping forces are formed de-facto. How can Israel come up with a plan without the authority to divert budgets, provide supplies and most of all - when it hasn't been decided where the troops will come from? Should Israel provide those as well?
Have you ever written an operational plan? It's difficult enough when you don't control the resources, impossible when you don't even know what resources are available, and plain imaginary when those resources don't even exist.

I'm standing by the fact that the widely reported "generous offers" are less that what you claimed and I agreed is fair.You can keep standing there. I'll be right here with all the others that have achieved the amazing feat of grasping the difficult concept of N-E-G-O-T-I-A-T-I-O-N.

Not just the other parties, your continuing occupation and expansion undermines the Palestinian right to exist and you have some extremists on your side who engage in terrorism on Palestinian civilians as well.I don't know how much more proof you need that Israel recognises the Palestinian's right for an independent state alongside Israel, but that doesn't matter since apparently you know better than I the inner workings of the Israeli borg-like conscience.
Regarding the handful of Israeli extremists that have committed acts of terror, let me remind you of the word of the day - "proportions".

Bystander

Jul23-06, 03:42 PM

Around and around and around we go --- "same ol' sh*t" over and over and over. The UN cannot be a guarantor of peace in the ME. The U. S. cannot be a guarantor of peace in the ME. Who can be?

Arab culture and concepts of "negotiation, agreement, bargain(ing), contract, and treaty" are different than in "the west." Islamic spin on same is even more different. Solomon's gone (if he ever existed), and the limits of involvement by the U. S., UN, NATO, Arab League, and other denizens of the alphabet soup bowl is defined by limits of the congruence of the meanings of "negotiation, agreement, bargain(ing), contract, and treaty" in all these various cultures --- that, the congruence, at the moment, is zero, same as for the last 5-6 ka.

"Shall 'the west' adopt Arab and Islamic definitions for the terms?" Don't think the Arabs and Islamic world would like that, but, who knows. We certainly have had no luck getting the Arab and Islamic worlds to adopt western usage.

Yonoz

Jul23-06, 04:31 PM

Ah, perhaps that is not clear.
They have the same right to stand up and defend their homeland. Note, I said to defend, not to go out and start wars.Do you believe an array of ground to ground rockets that are too inaccurate to fire at anything short of a population center to be a defensive weapon?

Well, I for one would like to see these weapons. So far, I have only seen peoples houses being destroyed.I've already posted a link to one movie showing a vehicle used to launch rockets hidden in a mosque. Here's another video of a briefing by the head of the intelligence section in the general staff (http://video.nrg.co.il/lib/wmv/558/082.wmv). About 8m 45s into the video you can see an example of some of the tedious intelligence work needed for this campaign. It shows a room in several stages of construction, used to hide a medium range rocket. It's hard for anyone with no experience in analyzing aerial photographs to identify the rocket and the picture quality isn't great (it's a live recording of a projected image) but it only serves as an example. Pardon me if I can't show you more specific details of intelligence work. If anything else shows up on the media I'll be sure to post it here.

Cyrus

Jul23-06, 04:53 PM

Do you believe an array of ground to ground rockets that are too inaccurate to fire at anything short of a population center to be a defensive weapon?

For them, that's all they have. It's that or a rock. Do you consider Israel's atomic bombs a defensive weapon? Those atomic bombs would turn Lebanon into a parking lot. It's a deterrent.

I've already posted a link to one movie showing a vehicle used to launch rockets hidden in a mosque. Here's another video of a briefing by the head of the intelligence section in the general staff (http://video.nrg.co.il/lib/wmv/558/082.wmv). About 8m 45s into the video you can see an example of some of the tedious intelligence work needed for this campaign. It shows a room in several stages of construction, used to hide a medium range rocket. It's hard for anyone with no experience in analyzing aerial photographs to identify the rocket and the picture quality isn't great (it's a live recording of a projected image) but it only serves as an example. Pardon me if I can't show you more specific details of intelligence work. If anything else shows up on the media I'll be sure to post it here.

Sure, cases like that are fine by me. There was a clear threat in that building. As for the other buildings, can you show a clear threat? Sure, intelligence might say there are weapons in there, but it could be wrong. Why not send ground troops to find said weapons rather than use bunker buster bombs on people’s houses?

Hurkyl

Jul23-06, 06:23 PM

Sure, cases like that are fine by me. There was a clear threat in that building. As for the other buildings, can you show a clear threat? Sure, intelligence might say there are weapons in there, but it could be wrong. Why not send ground troops to find said weapons rather than use bunker buster bombs on people’s houses?
Well, let's think it through.

First off, remember that the IDF is not the Lebanese police force. They are not responsible for prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there were weapons there.

The risks of bombing are clear -- collateral damage, and the possibility of anti-aircraft fire. What are the risks of sending in ground forces?

I would think that sending in ground forces would lead to urban warfare with Hezbollah militants, which I would think would lead to heavy casualties for all parties involved. (Israeli, Hezbollah, and civilian) The scale of the operation seems, to me, to require a full scale invasion, though I suppose we're getting that anyways.

It is not clear to me that sending in ground troops is a preferable option.

Incidentally, I don't know what sort of damage a tactical strike does these days. Do you know where I could find info on that?

Cyrus

Jul23-06, 06:40 PM

Incidentally, I don't know what sort of damage a tactical strike does these days. Do you know where I could find info on that?

I dont have that kind of information, what do you think I am, a terrorist!? :tongue2:

kyleb

Jul23-06, 07:19 PM

Perhaps they were relevant back in 1980, the year that document saw light. Hizbullah was 2 years old back then. I still contend that they're irrelevant today.
So the 3 examples you mention are all boarder crossings they had prevent sense then but but failed at? Surely not.

You fail to see the point. UN peacekeeping forces are formed de-facto. How can Israel come up with a plan without the authority to divert budgets, provide supplies and most of all - when it hasn't been decided where the troops will come from? Should Israel provide those as well?
Have you ever written an operational plan? It's difficult enough when you don't control the resources, impossible when you don't even know what resources are available, and plain imaginary when those resources don't even exist.
It's what you are working with them on now, rather late obviously:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/MFA+Spokesman/2006/FM+Livni+meets+with+special+UN+team+18-Jul-2006.htm

You can keep standing there. I'll be right here with all the others that have achieved the amazing feat of grasping the difficult concept of N-E-G-O-T-I-A-T-I-O-N.
L-O-W-B-A-L-L-I-N-G, I grasp that, and I thumb my nose at it. You have hard liners controlling your government that refuse to even consider giving up East Jerusalem areas and sections of the West Bank, until you can overcome those extremes that insist on denying Palestinians their land then you aren't negotiating, you are strongarming.

I don't know how much more proof you need that Israel recognises the Palestinian's right for an independent state alongside Israel, but that doesn't matter since apparently you know better than I the inner workings of the Israeli borg-like conscience.
Regarding the handful of Israeli extremists that have committed acts of terror, let me remind you of the word of the day - "proportions".
You want to talk proportions here then let us count bodies between their terrorist acts and your terrorist acts and resistance to the occupation along with the civilian causalities from your IDF's occupation. Yeah, your argument here isn't going to win you anything.

Hurkyl

Jul23-06, 07:47 PM

I dont have that kind of information, what do you think I am, a terrorist!?
In another thread, you seemed to know a lot about aircraft. I figured I'd take a stab and see if you knew about the sorts of bombs they drop these days.

Cyrus

Jul23-06, 08:14 PM

The Lebanon War (Hebrew: מלחמת לבנון, Milkhemet Levanon), also known as the Operation Peace of the Galilee (מבצע שלום הגליל, Mivtsa Shalom HaGalil in Hebrew), began June 6, 1982, when the Israel Defense Forces invaded southern Lebanon. The Government of Israel gave a green light for the invasion as a response to the assassination attempt against Israel's ambassador to the United Kingdom, Shlomo Argov by Fatah - Revolutionary Council and to artillery attacks launched by the Palestine Liberation Organization against populated areas in northern Israel. See also Operation Litani.

After attacking PLO, Syrian and Muslim Lebanese forces, Israel occupied southern Lebanon. Surrounded in West Beirut and subject to heavy bombardment, the PLO and the Syrian forces negotiated passage from Lebanon with the aid of international peacekeepers.

History has a tendency of repeating itself, no?

Cyrus

Jul23-06, 08:19 PM

In another thread, you seemed to know a lot about aircraft. I figured I'd take a stab and see if you knew about the sorts of bombs they drop these days.

The kind that you don't want to be anywhere near when they come down.

mbrmbrg

Jul23-06, 10:03 PM

Sure, cases like that are fine by me. There was a clear threat in that building. As for the other buildings, can you show a clear threat? Sure, intelligence might say there are weapons in there, but it could be wrong. Why not send ground troops to find said weapons rather than use bunker buster bombs on people’s houses?

Well, I don't know about Yonoz, but I can't provide a clear threat for every single target hit by the Israelis. For the simple reason that not every single intelligence report is made public. Remember: intelligence is usually classified information.

As for your second point: these people's houses are, most unfortunately (not sarcasm in this paragraph!), housing Hizbollah arsenals/personnel. Yonoz's convincing clip was in Hebrew, so allow me to translate 9:40-9:48 for you: "He who goes to sleep at night next to rockets aimed at Israel may wake up in the morning to find the room next to his house destroyed." Me: or his whole beautiful building destroyed. Aren't rockets explosive?
Do you really think it's so simple to send some soldiers to stroll into an enemy's arsenal, confirm and supplement intelligence reports, deal with it, and stroll out? Frankly, yes, I think it does make a bit more sense to level the whole building and be done with it.

Yonoz

Jul24-06, 02:04 AM

For them, that's all they have. It's that or a rock.Not quite, thanks to Syria (Kornet-E (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/kornet/)) and Iran (C-802 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/c-802.htm)).

Regarding the second part, I think hurkyl and mbrmbrg hit the nail on the head.

EDIT:Why not send ground troops to find said weapons rather than use bunker buster bombs on people’s houses?Once again you're throwing wild unsubstantiated accusations. The armaments for each target are selected to reduce collateral damage as much as possible. The only target bunker busters were fired at was the command center in Beirut.

Yonoz

Jul24-06, 02:16 AM

It's what you are working with them on now, rather late obviously:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/MFA+Spokesman/2006/FM+Livni+meets+with+special+UN+team+18-Jul-2006.htmYou don't really read these, do you?The diplomatic process is not intended to reduce the window of opportunity for military operations, but will take place in parallel.
"We are beginning a diplomatic process in parallel to the military operations, which shall continue," she said. "The military objectives are to hit Hizbullah's infrastructure and physical strength. The diplomatic process is not intended to reduce the time available for the IDF's operations, but as an extension of it in order to avoid the need for additional operations in the future.
Regarding the possibility of stationing an international force on Lebanon's border with Israel, Livni stated: "Past experience with UNIFIL was not satisfactory. We shall examine what solutions are suitable for us. The criteria are: the implementation of 1559 and the Lebanese Army deployed in the south."

I'm going to have to put a stop to the Palestinian question argument, it's off topic and somewhat circular.

Yonoz

Jul24-06, 02:20 AM

History has a tendency of repeating itself, no?Since there have been no major incursions yet, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Yonoz

Jul24-06, 02:59 AM

Here's more footage of rockets being fired from residential areas (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3280436,00.html). It's about 2/3 through the video.

kyleb

Jul24-06, 03:18 AM

You don't really read these, do you?
Of course I read the links I post, but I read the whole pages and not what you selectively quote as if to contest my points. As I did last time you tried to pull that, here is the bit I have been saying should have been done years ago:

This must, of course, include the effective deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces through the south, in place of Hizbullah, and the disarming of Hizbullah as a militia.

I'm going to have to put a stop to the Palestinian question argument, it's off topic and somewhat circular.
It is most relevant to all Muslims grevinces with Israel, but if you want to drop the discussion then so be it; your continuing defense of Israel's expressed intent to permanency hold Palestinian land despite the fact you know that is less than fair has been getting really old.

Yonoz

Jul24-06, 03:23 AM

Of course I read the links I post, but I read the whole pages and not what you selectively quote as if to contest my points. As I did last time you tried to pull that, here is the bit I have been saying should have been done years ago:This must, of course, include the effective deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces through the south, in place of Hizbullah, and the disarming of Hizbullah as a militia.This is nothing new, it's something Israel has always called for.

kyleb

Jul24-06, 03:30 AM

Call for yeah, but I had been asking when you:

...discussed the most effective ways to achieve these objectives.

Seems you are just now getting around to that.

kyleb

Jul24-06, 03:32 AM

Here's more footage of rockets being fired from residential areas (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3280436,00.html). It's about 2/3 through the video.
Could you describe what factors you are refferingto when you say "residential area"? And what prior to this makes this footage "more"?

Yonoz

Jul24-06, 03:43 AM

Seems you are just now getting around to that.:rofl: What's happened to your demand that Israel should have drawn up a plan for a neighbouring country to police itself? What about your claim that Israel should create a multinational force out of thin air? Does it hurt much when you bend head over heels like that?

Could you describe what factors you are refferingto when you say "residential area"?See those rectangular things, you know - with all the walls, windows and roofs? It may not be the Manhattan skyline but that's what people live in over here at this part of the world.
And what prior to this makes this footage "more"?The 2 previous video clips I linked to.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul24-06, 04:32 AM

Oslo Accords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords).

That was not lasting peace, peace for five minutes is no peace I know.

I've shown there was no such treaty, only a UN plan, and that the State of Israel was established according to that plan. It was the Arab nations that attacked it the next day thus "breaking the treaty" in your own words.

I wonder why, turfing the indeginous population off their land is likely to upset people wouldn't you say, and you telling us that they have no state so it's not their land is hogwash of the finest order, you'll convince no one that Palestine did not have a right to that land. Might it not have been better to move to the US or UK, in hindsight? 2/3rds of the worlds countries recognise Palestine as a state. Which means they can own land if they talk to an Englishman, but not an Israelite? :uhh:

Israel never refused to return the land. It actually gave most of it back already. It was the Arab leaders that decided in the Khartoum conference not to negotiate with Israel under any circumstance.
Every piece of land that was settled before the war of independence was bought. Jews all around the world put whatever money they could spare into the famous JNF (http://www.jnf.org/) "blue box" (photo attached) to redeem the land our entire culture is centred around.
Please enlighten me.

Your problem is you only see what you want to see, this seems to be standard, understandable, but standard, I suggest you make the effort to look at both sides of the issue, from where I'm standing your opiions don't sound balanced, and therefore are none too convincing.

What pat on the back?

The US will support whatever Israel does, some people even condone the huge civillian casualties blaming the terroists for it as if they dropped the bombs theirselves, uninformed and partisan but that is the US for you, their media particularly newspapers neglect to print both sides of the story and their is a strong pro Israeli lobby, essentially they are not exposed or do not want to be exposed to the truth sometimes, in that way they echo yourself, I'm speaking generally and from a point of view from other web sites, but this is what I'm seeing, thus you will get no opposition from the majority of people here is as in my experience most are US citizens.

I will acknowledge that not all US citizens are biased, but they don't tend to voice opinions on fourms :)

EDITED for clarity.

I was just thinking that picture shows Bill Clinton with Yaser and Yitzak. It's a shame such liberals are not in governement now in the US and Palestine. Given the choice who'd chose Bush over Clinton? :smile:

mbrmbrg

Jul24-06, 07:27 AM

Oslo Accords.
That was not lasting peace, peace for five minutes is no peace I know.

That's his point, Schrodinger's Dog!
Peace. Is. Attempted.
Peace. Resembles. No. Peace. Anyone. Knows.
QED

Anttech

Jul24-06, 07:54 AM

Yonoz

Jul24-06, 08:09 AM

Some food for thought:

Imagine if the British bombed Dublin in the same way as Israel is bombing Beruit, in an attempt to derail the IRA during the N.Ireland problems. I wonder how much backing that tactic would have gotten? Hmm none perhaps? Strange how its ok for Israel to do exactly that, aganinst lebanon.Of course, then you'd also have to imagine there was no Irish channel, the British left Ireland completely, and Irish rockets were killing people in Liverpool and Manchester.

Anttech

Jul24-06, 08:25 AM

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul24-06, 10:35 AM

No why would you? The IRA were bombing places and people in all the major cities in England. They were ambushing Amry checkpoints, they were killing innocent civilans. They are many similarities, up to and including that the IRA wanted the destuction of the United Kingdom of Great Britan and Northern Ireland. Over 3000 people died in "the troubles".

The one thing that isnt similar is the method of dealing with the threat.

You've hit the nail on the head, and also enlightened us as to why we the English generally, believe peace is a better option, because a peaceful resolution was mooted and worked in NI(fingers crossed, but it's been while now) The key is to keep the peace process alive for as long as possible, as is shown by the middle easts cyclical nature of war and peaceful moments(the repeated failure of war to resolve anything I mean) people seem to forget astonishingly quickly how futile previous attempts were and the future violence they cause. So I would imagine that they would forget the lists of attacks against them quickly too.

I'm not sure it's a perfect analogy NI as the situations are very different, but it's at least a good example of how moderate behaviour worked. Also as a matter of interest, after we started hunting down terrorists, in a more bloody period of the conflict, we realised this tactic was untennable because in the following three years IRA recruitment soared, and soon enough there were 3 times as many IRA operatives as there were before we started using gunishment. I see no reason to believe that the same thing does not happen in the Middle East and it explains why I think a war on terror is counterproductive.

Cyrus

Jul24-06, 11:32 AM

Not quite, thanks to Syria (Kornet-E (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/kornet/)) and Iran (C-802 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/c-802.htm)).

Regarding the second part, I think hurkyl and mbrmbrg hit the nail on the head.

EDIT:Once again you're throwing wild unsubstantiated accusations. The armaments for each target are selected to reduce collateral damage as much as possible. The only target bunker busters were fired at was the command center in Beirut.

So what, all your weapons come from my country.

They have a few dingy rockets which have no aim (as you said so yourself).

You have a problem with them firing rockets at your cities, yet you have no problems droping bunker buster bombs on theirs. Do you see the problem with that?

I will post more later. I have to go to class now.

Evo

Jul24-06, 12:09 PM

Not pointing the finger at anyone in specific, but let's all take a breather and calm down. Remember you're discussing the situation in the Middle East, you aren't at war with each other.

kyleb

Jul24-06, 12:40 PM

:rofl: What's happened to your demand that Israel should have drawn up a plan for a neighbouring country to police itself?
I said they should have worked with the international community to develop such a plan, as they are finally doing now.

What about your claim that Israel should create a multinational force out of thin air?
see my previous comment.

Does it hurt much when you bend head over heels like that?
That one is for you to answer.

See those rectangular things, you know - with all the walls, windows and roofs? It may not be the Manhattan skyline but that's what people live in over here at this part of the world.
The 2 previous video clips I linked to.
I see some buildings around, but It's the places in Beirut and such that do look a bit like areas of Manhattan or suburbs full of houses that people like myself are commenting on when we talk about you bombing residential areas.

Yonoz

Jul24-06, 02:53 PM

Not pointing the finger at anyone in specific, but let's all take a breather and calm down. Remember you're discussing the situation in the Middle East, you aren't at war with each other.Too right. My apologies, kyleb and cyrus, this matter is an emotional one for me. Not because of some national pride, I do have many loved ones who are at risk.
I'm going to have to let some of your comments go unanswered since I have an exam tomorrow and it seems like I'd be called up soon. Until that happens (if it really does) I hope we can continue this discussion.
I said they should have worked with the international community to develop such a plan, as they are finally doing now.Well it seems that even now they're having problems finding nations that are willing to risk putting their soldiers in confrontation with Hizbullah. I hope the international community throws a big enough bone to Egypt or Saudi Arabia so they send some of their troops to do the hands-on work. A western military would be of little use if they decide to give them a fight.

I see some buildings around, but It's the places in Beirut and such that do look a bit like areas of Manhattan or suburbs full of houses that people like myself are commenting on when we talk about you bombing residential areas.The neighbourhood that was targeted in Beirut was Hizbullah's capital. It housed their offices, command centres, communication facilities, media channels and bunkers all cordoned off behind roadblocks manned by militants with AK47s and RPGs. Ask any journalist who's been to Beirut, you couldn't get in there without authorization from them. It's impossible to prove to you each target's validity so you'll just have to take my word and ask yourself why some buildings were completely destroyed while others were left untouched (a difficult job in itself).
Have you listened to this interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5567843)? It describes it rather well.

Yonoz

Jul24-06, 03:05 PM

They have a few dingy rockets which have no aim (as you said so yourself)..They still do a very good job of killing civilians. Read Hezbollah's Strategic Rocket Arsenal (http://www.meib.org/articles/0211_l2.htm) for more information.
Our weapons are accurate and guided by state of the art technology. A "bunker buster" has to be dropped accurately over a bunker to have any effect. It does not simply explode and release thousands of supersonic pellets around it like their rockets.

Cyrus

Jul24-06, 03:13 PM

Too right. My apologies, kyleb and cyrus, this matter is an emotional one for me. Not because of some national pride, I do have many loved ones who are at risk.

No worries, you have not offended me. It takes a lot to offend me. :wink:

Yonoz

Jul24-06, 04:27 PM

One last post before I go to bed: UN humanitarian chief accused Hizbullah of 'cowardly blending' among civilians (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3280876,00.html).
This contrasts sharply with the price Israel pays for freedom of press: in this video you can see journalists so eager to photograph a seriously wounded soldier they get in the way and raise the anger of his comrades (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3280436,00.html).

Hurkyl

Jul24-06, 06:06 PM

Our weapons are accurate and guided by state of the art technology. A "bunker buster" has to be dropped accurately over a bunker to have any effect. It does not simply explode and release thousands of supersonic pellets around it like their rockets.
Maybe you can answer my question -- how much damage do the bombs being dropped over Lebanon actually do?

You have a problem with them firing rockets at your cities, yet you have no problems droping bunker buster bombs on theirs.
Why do you omit the major difference between the two?

Cyrus

Jul24-06, 06:21 PM

Why do you omit the major difference between the two?

Explain to me the difference then Hurkyl. Hezbollah might happen to be in one or two appartments out of the entire building, yes? So what about all those other appartments that are occupied by civilians. Why dont you tell them, whose houses have been bombed, why it's different.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5577538

Look at the captions. Car bombed by Israeli warplane in front of a hospital. I guess nothing is off limits to bombing, huh?

Doctors treat a wounded Lebanese civilian July 23, 2006, in Tyre, Lebanon. A family fleeing Tyre in a van was bombed by an Israeli warplane on Sunday.

A Lebanese soldier tries to extinguish a car that was bombed in front of a hospital by an Israeli warplane July 23, 2006. Getty Images

Doctors treat Mahmoud Surour, whose face and chest were badly burned in an airstrike yesterday in Tyre. Surour was evacuated from Tyre on Monday by a ship from Cyprus.

Does that look like hezbollah to you?

Gokul43201

Jul24-06, 06:28 PM

Cyrus, what do you think Israel gains by bombing civilian locations with no strategic value?

Cyrus

Jul24-06, 06:29 PM

Cyrus, what do you think Israel gains by bombing civilian locations with no strategic value?

What do you think they gain by holding people at checkpoints for hours while humiliating them?

Cyrus

Jul24-06, 06:32 PM

I STRONGLY URGE you all to listen to this clip, I heard it in the car on the way to school today. Listen to what your own people are saying!

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/24/1439247

fargoth

Jul24-06, 06:49 PM

What do you think they gain by holding people at checkpoints for hours while humiliating them?

huh!, the checkpoits weren't made for humiliation's sake.
Do you think Israel would waste it's soldier's time in standing there if it wasn't a necessity to check if the person coming into Israel doesn't carry a bomb with him?

Do you know how many lives are being saved by these humiliating checkpoints?

do you honestly believe Israel does does it all out of hatered?

Cyrus

Jul24-06, 06:53 PM

mbrmbrg

Jul24-06, 06:58 PM

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/23/mideast.bolton/

I think Bolton poses a telling question to all those who say Israel's response is out of proportion.
(and seeing how this is a physics forum:)
"x is too large" is a meaningless statement if unbounded.
Try instead: \{x\mid m\leq x\leq n\}
:biggrin:

fargoth

Jul24-06, 07:01 PM

i'm downloading it right now, but the connection here is very slow... i'll listen to it first thing in the morning.

though i don't think one checkpoint that doesn't work as it should means all checkpoint are like that... the purpose of these checkpoints is not to humiliate.

and i don't see what this has to do with hizbollah - are you suggesting that if Israel does one wrong deed then it, by induction, does all thing because its evil?
i can't see your logic...

Cyrus

Jul24-06, 07:01 PM

That's not a telling question. :rolleyes:

It goes slow, I know. When its done, go to about half way to get to the interview.

Hopefully, more people like in the interview will prevail in Isreal, Palestine and Lebanon. Then peace can be attained.

Bystander

Jul24-06, 07:16 PM

Listen to the audio clip fargoth. The commander of the checkpoint even had problems with the ways these checks are being carried out.

Saving lives at the checkpoint has nothing to do with humiliation.

Substitute "airline passenger screening" for "Israeli checkpoint;" welcome to the 21st century.

OP had to do with implications of the current "hot phase" of a very old conflict, not its roots, nor whose "gunnysack" carries more weight in the eyes of the world. Is H(e,i)(s,z)b(a,o)lla operating legally far as UN, international law, and what all? No. Has Lebanon taken any action to intern, disarm, deport, or otherwise control the group as far as complying with 1559? No. What are the implications? Same old "sh*t" --- much international expression of shock, dismay, disgust, and the usual ineffective action on the part of the UN, perfectly understandable reluctance to station peacekeeping troops in an area that has no tradition of rule by law, and a guaranteed rematch in 5-10 years --- maybe 20. WW III? No. Hardwired into the nuclear triggers of the Cold War, and since that's over, it's hardwired into nothing.

Hurkyl

Jul24-06, 10:49 PM

Explain to me the difference then Hurkyl.
The IAF targets Hezbollah. Hezbollah targets civilians. This has been said many times already.

Hezbollah might happen to be in one or two appartments out of the entire building, yes?
Shame on Hezbollah. That's part of the reason something needs to be done about them -- not only do they target Israeli citizens, but they use Lebanese citizens as human shields.

So what about all those other appartments that are occupied by civilians. Why dont you tell them, whose houses have been bombed, why it's different.
This looks like an appeal to emotion. If this is supposed to be an actual argument, then could you clarify it for me?

Cyrus

Jul24-06, 11:09 PM

The IAF targets Hezbollah. Hezbollah targets civilians. This has been said many times already.

Sure, and that certainly is a problem with Hezbollah.

Shame on Hezbollah. That's part of the reason something needs to be done about them -- not only do they target Israeli citizens, but they use Lebanese citizens as human shields.

And, equally, shame on Israel for knowingly sending bombs when they know it will inflict civilian casualties. Listen to the audio clip I provided, he is quite right in saying that Israel has a responsibility in how it acts when it engages in battle. That is no better than what Hezbollah does, and will always caused renewed hatred.

This looks like an appeal to emotion. If this is supposed to be an actual argument, then could you clarify it for me?

Eh?

MeJennifer

Jul24-06, 11:14 PM

So what about all those other appartments that are occupied by civilians. Why dont you tell them, whose houses have been bombed, why it's different.

This looks like an appeal to emotion. If this is supposed to be an actual argument, then could you clarify it for me?
The death of innocent people is no longer an argument for you?

Mental Gridlock

Jul24-06, 11:23 PM

I don't know if this is against the rules but I didn't read this whole thread and kind of wanted to drop in and give my unsolicited opinion anyway as I have been following this very closely and I think I made sense of it.

If I repeated anyone I'm sorry and I give all original credit to where it is due.

I don't like the idea that this is a war against Hezbollah only, and leave the Lebonese government out of it. For all intents and purposes, the Lebonese government is behind the Hezbollah attacks and equally culpable.

Does Lebanon not have police? Don't they have a military? Of course. Don't they have the capability to cooperate in disarming Hezbollah? Of course. They can but they won't. They refuse. They said they will for their end of the deal but refuse to comply.

Conversely, the government has openly stated that they will RESIST any invasions seeking to disarm Hezbollah. They are saying "we won't disarm Hezbollah, and neither will you. NO ONE disarms Hezbollah". They are operating therefore within Lebonese borders sponsored and supported by the Lebonese government who is protecting and defending their safe haven.

The premise for the war on terror is that we go after the terrorists, and those who support and harbor them, suchas Iran, Lebanon etc. I like that plan.

Mental Gridlock

Jul24-06, 11:30 PM

And I think somewhere (though maybe not from physics forums) I recall hearing about this as an "illegal" invasion.

That is wierd because if anything, it's not like a new war at all, it's just Israel reoccupying from before and is a continuation of that. Since they didn't get what they were supposed to they said fine in that case we rescind as well.

You know like if I cut a check to an exterminator, and in exchange he is to exterminate a bunch of bugs for me. Well if time goes by and the house is swarming with more cockroaches than ever, obviously they didn't do their job like they were supposed to. At this point it's like okay, well in THAT case we need to issue a stop payment on this check, or dispute the credit card charge or what have you. Israel will pull out if Hezbollah is disarmed. Israel pulls out. Hezbollah is not disarmed. Years go by. Fine then, in THAT case we're going back in.

Yonoz

Jul24-06, 11:49 PM

Maybe you can answer my question -- how much damage do the bombs being dropped over Lebanon actually do?Unfortunately I cannot divulge any technical information, I'd be in breach of several contracts i signed. When researching a target the analyst determines the munition(s) needed according to its shielding and distance from other structures. He/she can choose anything from small air-ground missiles with a HEAT payload to a heavy cluster bomb, or in rare cases the infamous bunker buster. A craft on a hunting mission usually carries the first type. Artillery units operate only after civilians have cleared the area and fire HE or cluster shells. I've seen MLRS being used as well.

Yonoz

Jul24-06, 11:53 PM

Hopefully, more people like in the interview will prevail in Isreal, Palestine and Lebanon. Then peace can be attained.Even though it's off topic I'd like to comment there are many like us, unfortunately it's hard to convince Israelis to support more concessions with rockets fired on our cities from every place we pulled out of.

Yonoz

Jul24-06, 11:55 PM

And, equally, shame on Israel for knowingly sending bombs when they know it will inflict civilian casualties.If you were Israel's PM, obligated to protect your people, and Hizbullah was attacking your civilians from Lebanese population centres, what would you do?

Mickey

Jul25-06, 12:44 AM

I think we'll have to just end up dropping sedatives and/or antidepressants over the entire region.

kyleb

Jul25-06, 01:11 AM

Too right. My apologies, kyleb and cyrus, this matter is an emotional one for me. Not because of some national pride, I do have many loved ones who are at risk.
Understood man, it is emotional for me as well as I care about all people. I do wish all your loved ones the best and my comments here are made with the hopes that better was will be presued so that less people are put at risk when dealing with future problems of this nature.
Well it seems that even now they're having problems finding nations that are willing to risk putting their soldiers in confrontation with Hizbullah.
Yeah, that is a problem, much more so now since the this war has heavily escalated the violence.
I hope the international community throws a big enough bone to Egypt or Saudi Arabia so they send some of their troops to do the hands-on work. A western military would be of little use if they decide to give them a fight.
At this point yeah, it is an all out fight Prior to this I would have liked to see Europeans playing a big part as that last World War knocked quite a bit of sense into them in regards to the horors of war and what it takes to achieve peace.
The neighbourhood that was targeted in Beirut was Hizbullah's capital. It housed their offices, command centres, communication facilities, media channels and bunkers all cordoned off behind roadblocks manned by militants with AK47s and RPGs. Ask any journalist who's been to Beirut, you couldn't get in there without authorization from them. It's impossible to prove to you each target's validity so you'll just have to take my word and ask yourself why some buildings were completely destroyed while others were left untouched (a difficult job in itself).
Have you listened to this interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5567843)? It describes it rather well.
I do understand concept of the right tool for the job, I just don't have the same faith you do that every target was valid. I'd wager that anyone important to Hezbollah command was cleared out of such an easy target as an apartment building and moved to safer locations the moment your planes took to the sky if not before.

I will give the interview you linked a listen tomorrow though.

kyleb

Jul25-06, 01:24 AM

huh!, the checkpoits weren't made for humiliation's sake.
Do you think Israel would waste it's soldier's time in standing there if it wasn't a necessity to check if the person coming into Israel doesn't carry a bomb with him?

Do you know how many lives are being saved by these humiliating checkpoints?

do you honestly believe Israel does does it all out of hatered?
The checkpoints for coming into Israel are respectable, but not all the checkpoints Israel maintains which divide Palestine into pieces:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/settlements_checkpoints.stm

kyleb

Jul25-06, 01:26 AM

Substitute "airline passenger screening" for "Israeli checkpoint;" welcome to the 21st century.
Look at the map I linked in my last post and welcome to a giant prison camp run by foreigners have contenued to occupy your homeland for nearly 40 years. How would you liked to have been born into that?

Yonoz

Jul25-06, 04:14 AM

I do understand concept of the right tool for the job, I just don't have the same faith you do that every target was valid.I've an intimate, years-long experience with almost every stage of the process. While obviously mistakes can be made, every target has to be "incriminated" before being attacked. Considering Hizbullah's strategy of using civilians as a human shield and diguising their weapons in civilian vehicles, as well as the danger these weapons pose to Israeli civilians, I think the results, however unfortunate, are absolutely justifiable.
I'd wager that anyone important to Hezbollah command was cleared out of such an easy target as an apartment building and moved to safer locations the moment your planes took to the sky if not before.Not so in the case of their bunkers. Intelligence does show their command structure suffered loses, though they deny it. Furthermore, though because the buildings may have been empty, their destruction poses an undeniable blow to Hizbullah's operative foundation. It's extremely difficult to manage a paramilitary organisation when all your staff is spread out in limbo (or dangerously concentrated), your phone & radio links attacked, and records destroyed.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul25-06, 05:07 AM

Well this is moving along, I will say this obviously Yonoz is going to have some very strong opinions, and it shows a deal of maturity that he hasn't gotten angry under a deal of provocation. People say nothing will get solved on internet forums, it's true in a way, but I'm sure making people aware of how those outside of the situation helps them to gain a perspective. Otherwise there is a dager of serious polarizations, and who knows how many Israelis are reading this, not saying this is going to change the world or alter public opinion, but it's never bad to have informed people in the situation, who knoes what ideas they may give to someone who does have influence?

Anyway can't reply to specific points at the moment although I would like to. I am heartened to see that it has gotten to this many pages before someone claimed the UN is useless and could do nothing :smile: this is another cliche, I suspect it's now part of the public consciousness, probably kicked of when someone told someone not to do something and they get all huffy with it and start chastising it as a toothless powereless kitten. Anyway. It isn't, people generally have no understanding of it's remit, and of course it was set up so that five major countries could have control, but that doesn't mean it has no power just that, you have to really rub it in when a major power abuses it's powers, losing reputation is not as small a matter as most think, anyway OT, I really must start a "is the UN completely usesless thread, so that we can take a blow by blow look at all the issues it's invovled in."

Hurkyl

Jul25-06, 08:13 AM

And, equally, shame on Israel
No, not equally. Israel targets Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a fair target for this conflict. It is not Israel's fault that you cannot attack Hezbollah without harming Lebanese civilians.

The fact that Israel has to attack residential areas is entirely Hezbollah's fault. The only possible reasonable criticism along these lines is whether Israel is making enough effort to limit the collateral damage.

The death of innocent people is no longer an argument for you?
Firstly, the death of innocent people is a fact, not an argument.

Secondly, as a fact, it can be used in valid arguments. But emotional appeals are not valid arguments.

I don't like the idea that this is a war against Hezbollah only, and leave the Lebonese government out of it.
It's the power of positive thinking! I think it's still fair to give the rest of Lebanese government the benefit of the doubt.

Does Lebanon not have police? Don't they have a military? Of course. Don't they have the capability to cooperate in disarming Hezbollah? Of course.
I've heard it suggested they're not strong enough to do so. I don't really know either way.

Unfortunately I cannot divulge any technical information,
I'm mainly just looking to see if the scale of the smallest bombs is on the order of "takes out a single room in a house", "damages everything in a 50 meter radius", or "levels an entire city block", if that's the sort of thing you can say.

Jimmy Snyder

Jul25-06, 09:31 AM

I don't know if someone has already pointed this out, but Lebanon's biggest and most persistent problem at this moment is not Israel, but Hezbollah. Israel may not be perfect in all this, but to criticize Israel now is quibbling.

Don't confuse yourself on this point: Hezbollah is using Israel as an excuse to destroy Lebanon. Even more than Israel, it is Lebanon that needs for Hezbollah to be eliminated.

kyleb

Jul25-06, 09:31 AM

I've an intimate, years-long experience with almost every stage of the process.
I do respect that you are involved in the planing and I don't doubt that you do meticulous work with noble intention. But I have trouble believing that is all that is going on here when I continue to see reports like this:
In letter to Defense Minister Amir Peretz, Association for Civil Rights in Israel condemns as illegal IDF chief’s comment that ‘for every Katyusha barrage on Haifa, 10 Dahiya buildings will be bombed’

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3280788,00.html

Surely you don't see such stated intentions as justifiable, absolutely or otherwise?

mbrmbrg

Jul25-06, 09:59 AM

mbrmbrg

Jul25-06, 10:06 AM

And if the "10 buildings" question is the proportionate forces question again, I think John Bolton sums it up quite well:

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/23/mideast.bolton/

"What Hezbollah has done is kidnap Israeli soldiers and rain rockets and mortar shells on innocent Israeli civilians. What Israel has done in response is act in self-defense. And I don't quite know what the argument about proportionate force means here. Is Israel entitled only to kidnap two Hezbollah operatives and fire a couple of rockets aimlessly into Lebanon?"

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul25-06, 10:41 AM

Firstly, the death of innocent people is a fact, not an argument.

Also pointing out that the ratio of civillian death to military death is also a fact, facts are then used in arguments to convey meaning by correlation of fact we then use a condition or a proposition based on such facts to suggest our reasoning behind a view point; we can of course add an emotional context to strengthen our case such as an anecdotal account from someone at ground zero and so on:smile:

Secondly, as a fact, it can be used in valid arguments. But emotional appeals are not valid arguments.

Could you explain why, if I say "thousands of people are dying in Xistan and we need to send help now", and someone says "why it's none of my concern" and you say "God damn it these people only need a few dollars each and we can save hundreds of lives", and you say... You get the idea, emotion is not only a key element to any argument or discussion if you can't use it then your arguments are perhaps precise, but also somewhat hollow and unlikely to get as much attention or of a result as one using the feelings of people in situations.

If I say damn it! Don't you understand that this is turning ordinary Lebanese into partisan Israeli haters, that is not a valid argument for not attacking their country? if I say hate breeds hate and hate breeds a circle of death! That is not a valid argument for warranting moderation? I am afraid we will have to disagree on that, some people do present cases in an analytical and robotic fashion, depending on the situation this can be very successfull, but in a discussion about war, emotion is a key factor, after all do you think that this crisis would even be happening with out the strength of hatred? or the tiredness of the people involved with a process that constantly devolves? I'd say people natural become emotional about war, particularly if they are close to it, and their arguments refect this, done well this can give an argument the spice it needs to hit home; emotion not part of a argument? Are you a Vulcan:biggrin:

I've heard it suggested they're not strong enough to do so. I don't really know either way.

Try wikipedia it has a link about the strength of their army, it suggests it sucks basically and they have asked aid from Egypt the US and various other countries to try and strengthen the effectiveness of their forces. as to how reliable wikipedia is is anyones guess. But there isn't much else to go on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Lebanon

The government of Lebanon has contracted the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Jordan, and Egypt to assess Lebanon's military and security infrastructure to develop reform programs in the near future.

With the departure of Syrian troops in April 2005, the government has made it a priority to modernize and upgrade the military and security forces. As of mid-July 2006 however, Lebanon is under heavy air and sea attack by Israeli forces and the LAF does not seem to be taking any noticeable action to defend the nation from the military campaign against it (since the army does not have any anti-aircraft missiles). Media reports indicate that some Lebanese military facilities as well as LAF personnel have been struck by Israeli bombardment.

The Air Force has no aircraft to counter the Israeli Air Force with. The Army does have anti-aircraft guns which have not fired on the Israelis.

Yonoz

Jul25-06, 11:37 AM

I'm mainly just looking to see if the scale of the smallest bombs is on the order of "takes out a single room in a house", "damages everything in a 50 meter radius", or "levels an entire city block", if that's the sort of thing you can say.The Hellfire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire) is a common air-ground missile with a 9kg warhead that would likely take out a room as well as the adjacent ones, though I wouldn't like to be anywhere near the floor that it hits. There are also slightly smaller weapons. I know very little about ship-shore missiles, there may be naval options too. Special forces operate and guide lighter weapons that require a short range, increasing accuracy.

russ_watters

Jul25-06, 12:38 PM

I've missed several days, so I won't get back into the debate, but I do have one comment on debating itself: Also pointing out that the ratio of civillian death to military death is also a fact, facts are then used in arguments to convey meaning by correlation of fact we then use a condition or a proposition based on such facts to suggest our reasoning behind a view point; we can of course add an emotional context to strengthen our case such as an anecdotal account from someone at ground zero and so on :smile: [emphasis added] Though often used in - indeed, often the basis of - such debates, that tactic is invalid for a debate, practically by definition. Emotions are to be avoided because they get in the way of what should really be guiding our actions: logic/reason. Indeed, acting on emotion is often the underlying problem that starts messes like the Arab/Israel crisis in the first place.

To put a finer point on it, though, PF has adopted rules (for the reasons above) that specify that discussions need to be rational to be acceptable here. That's not a warning or anything, I just wanted to point it out. Could you explain why, if I say "thousands of people are dying in Xistan and we need to send help now", and someone says "why it's none of my concern" and you say "God damn it these people only need a few dollars each and we can save hundreds of lives", and you say... You get the idea, emotion is not only a key element to any argument or discussion if you can't use it then your arguments are perhaps precise, but also somewhat hollow and unlikely to get as much attention or of a result as one using the feelings of people in situations. No. People use emotion because it is effective but it is effective only because peoples' ability to reason is poor. That hypothetical works perfectly well when approached rationally - indeed, it only works emotionally if it is the only thing in your head at the time. The minute you provide another emotional situation somewhere else, that situation disappears. The only way to responsibly choose between giving money to the people in your scenario and, say, people who are dying because an earthquake in Yistan knocked out their infrastructure is to do a cost-benefit analysis to determine how much positive impact your finite amount of money will have in each case.

Hans de Vries

Jul25-06, 01:26 PM

Middle East: Yet another historical miscalculation.

1) Hezbollah’s rain of rockets as a response to the Israeli air attacks has
so far managed to kill 18 or so civilians, several of them being Arab.

2) A single suicide bomber can kill much more civilians in a single blow.

3) Initial attempts to wipe out Hezbollah after the prisoner exchange
kidnapping has so far resulted in over 400 civilian dead, 700,000
displaced people, the infrastructure of a modern country demolished.
Large urban areas completely leveled. Stirred hatred against Israel
and the US to unprecedented levels as a result of the perceived
brutality and unfairness of the mass destruction.

How many people that were just going on with their normal life are
now again turning into suicide bombers all over the place? Again a
major escalation not in the last place due to the absence of the
historical moderating role of previous US administrations.

Regards, Hans

russ_watters

Jul25-06, 01:34 PM

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/emotiona.html An appeal to emotion is a type of argument which attempts to arouse the emotions of its audience in order to gain acceptance of its conclusion. Despite the example of Mr. Spock from the original Star Trek television series, emotion is not always out of place in logical thinking. However, there is no doubt that strong emotions can subvert rational thought, and playing upon emotions in an argument is often fallacious.

Mental Gridlock

Jul25-06, 02:32 PM

Does Lebanon not have police? Don't they have a military? Of course. Don't they have the capability to cooperate in disarming Hezbollah? Of course.
I've heard it suggested they're not strong enough to do so. I don't really know either way.

I have heard this as well. Lebanon on their own may very well not have enough strength to disarm Hezbollah.

But there are 3k or so UN soldiers there, as well as an enormous Israeli army which would definatily be allies in bringing them down.

I was careful about how I worded that and I was saying that Lebanon most definatily has the cabibility to cooperate in disarming Hezbollah.

It's not that they can't work together, it's that they refuse. In fact they have vowed reverse cooperation. They said they would resist rather than assist Israel if they came in there trying to bring down Hezbollah.

Therefore it is clear whose side the state of Lebanon is on. (which makes sense considering a chunk of their government IS Hezbollah).

Mental Gridlock

Jul25-06, 02:45 PM

Middle East: Yet another historical miscalculation.

1) Hezbollah’s rain of rockets as a response to the Israeli air attacks has
so far managed to kill 18 or so civilians, several of them being Arab.

2) A single suicide bomber can kill much more civilians in a single blow.

3) Initial attempts to wipe out Hezbollah after the prisoner exchange
kidnapping has so far resulted in over 400 civilian dead, 700,000
displaced people, the infrastructure of a modern country demolished.
Large urban areas completely leveled. Stirred hatred against Israel
and the US to unprecedented levels as a result of the perceived
brutality and unfairness of the mass destruction.

You are understating the Hezbollah violence in an attempt to paint a picture of Israel's response being not worth it in bringing down Hezbollah.

For example, Hezbollah is not only just responsible for 18 civilians dead from the last two weeks. The actual number is closer to 400.

Mental Gridlock

Jul25-06, 02:49 PM

And the rain of rockets is not just a "response" to Israeli aggression. Hezbollah started this mess, not Israel. ISRAEL is the ones responding to Hezbollah aggression and not the other way around.

Anttech

Jul25-06, 02:50 PM

Though often used in - indeed, often the basis of - such debates, that tactic is invalid for a debate, practically by definition. Emotions are to be avoided because they get in the way of what should really be guiding our actions: logic/reason. Indeed, acting on emotion is often the underlying problem that starts messes like the Arab/Israel crisis in the first place.
Perhaps we should start a new thread, but anyway. Debating is the means to an end. The end is to convince your *opponent* that your view point is the correct one. Life isnt binary and neither is a debate about the Israel Hezbollah conflict. There is no *logical* 1 or 0 or right or wrong. So to assert that emmotions "get in the way" is a falacy in this context IMHO.

kyleb

Jul25-06, 02:52 PM

kyleb

Jul25-06, 02:54 PM

It's not that they can't work together, it's that they refuse.
When, prior to this current war, did the Lebanese government refuse to cooperate to resolve this problem?

kyleb

Jul25-06, 03:00 PM

You are understating the Hezbollah violence in an attempt to paint a picture of Israel's response being not worth it in bringing down Hezbollah.

For example, Hezbollah is not only just responsible for 18 civilians dead from the last two weeks. The actual number is closer to 400.
He is acknowledging the fact that Hezbollah was simply looking to capture a few solders so they could exchange them for their own. The civilan deaths are a result of Israel's response to that.

Anttech

Jul25-06, 03:10 PM

But there are 3k or so UN soldiers there, as well as an enormous Israeli army which would definatily be allies in bringing them down.

I was careful about how I worded that and I was saying that Lebanon most definatily has the cabibility to cooperate in disarming Hezbollah.

It's not that they can't work together, it's that they refuse. In fact they have vowed reverse cooperation. They said they would resist rather than assist Israel if they came in there trying to bring down Hezbollah.

Would you like to shared your sources? Or will you accept that is your oppinion? Regardless I would be interested to know how one would come to such an oppinion

The "3000 UN soliders" are toothless. As a matter of fact its only 2000, and they are a *peace keeping* force. Annan wants to change this, and perhaps he will get his way as the EU steps up to the challange.

Lebanon understand that the militay wing of Hezbollah are a problem. But with the same sentance they understand that Israel doesnt have a right to destroy Beruit and create 500,000 Refugies, as they try to smash hezbollah to the ground. Which as we *should* all know by now doesnt work, by looking at all the evidence of counter terrorism tactics.

And the rain of rockets is not just a "response" to Israeli aggression. Hezbollah started this mess, not Israel. ISRAEL is the ones responding to Hezbollah aggression and not the other way around. Israel is also the aggressor in this situation. Its aggression is towards the whole of Lebanon in its attempt to smite the few.

Mental Gridlock

Jul25-06, 03:19 PM

He is acknowledging the fact that Hezbollah was simply looking to capture a few solders so they could exchange them for their own. The civilan deaths are a result of Israel's response to that.

The civilian deaths in Lebanon are a result of Israel's response, coupled with Hezbollah intentionally putting them in danger's way by using them as human shields.

When someone takes a hostage and gets the hostage killed, the hostage taker is at least somewhat responsible.

1) Hezbollah launched an attack to provoke the Israeli army. This was an intentional provocation. Obviously a response is anticipated. HEZBOLLAH started this violence.

2) They not only started the violence to elicit a response, but they also engrained themselves with civilians to purposely see to it that they would die when the Israelis launch their predictable counter attack.

Hezbollah has not just Israeli blood on their hands. Hezbollah has Lebonese blood on their hands too. Yet still the Lebonese support them.

Anttech

Jul25-06, 03:32 PM

Hezbollah are a Terrorist organisation. Its not the first and it wont be the last. They are using well defined terrorist tactics, of gurrelia warfair of Hit and Run. It still doesnt give the right to Israel to kill so many Lebanesse people, just because they cant figure out who is a Hezbollah soldier and who isnt. Yes sure they are allowed to defend themselfs, but they are creating a massive humaitarian problem, and are (the Israeli's the ones who are pulling the trigger) killing many civilans in the process.

By the way Lebanon is about 5 million or so people, Shi'ites are only 30% of this, and this is where the main support for Hezbollah comes from. I would guess that only a small fraction of the 30% would be supporting Hezbollah out right. So to say that "the Lebonese support them" is off course not true.

Anttech

Jul25-06, 03:56 PM

In all honesty, from a bigger picture perceptive. If I was Bush I would be raining in Israel a lot quicker than he is doing. Beruit was after the center of Bushes *new* democratic Middle East, the cedar revolution. The Lebanonese arent stupid, they know where all the bombs that are falling on there heads were made. I would bet that the *next* democratic goverment in Lebanon wont be so US Friendly. The way to beat hezbollah and its like is to rot them from the inside, the Israeli tactic is enforcing it from the inside, creating new soliders to die for thier cause. America needs to make new friends in the Middle East, Israel isnt going anywhere, and wont turn Politically against the hand that feeds them. Lebanon needs some friends in its time of need, lets hope the UN can get some teeth and save this country from become radicallised to much through hatred, of abundantly inbalanced actions.

Mental Gridlock

Jul25-06, 04:05 PM

But there are 3k or so UN soldiers there, as well as an enormous Israeli army which would definatily be allies in bringing them down.

I was careful about how I worded that and I was saying that Lebanon most definatily has the cabibility to cooperate in disarming Hezbollah.

It's not that they can't work together, it's that they refuse. In fact they have vowed reverse cooperation. They said they would resist rather than assist Israel if they came in there trying to bring down Hezbollah.

Would you like to shared your sources? Or will you accept that is your oppinion? Regardless I would be interested to know how one would come to such an oppinion

"We will fight terror wherever it is, because if we do not fight it, it will fight us," Halutz said at a news conference in Tel Aviv.

But Lebanon's defense minister said his troops, who have been neutral in the 10-day-old war, will fight the Israelis.

"The Lebanese army will resist and defend the country and prove that it is an army worthy of respect," Elias Murr said.

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/israelis_look_enemy_in_eye_worldnews_uri_dan__with _post_wire_services.htm

So if Israel would like to disarm Hezbollah (because Lebanon won't/can't) then Lebanon will fight against them. How's that for cooperation?

Anttech

Jul25-06, 04:12 PM

But Lebanon's defense minister said his troops, who have been neutral in the 10-day-old war, will fight the Israelis.

"The Lebanese army will resist and defend the country and prove that it is an army worthy of respect," Elias Murr said.

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews...e_services.htm

So if Israel would like to disarm Hezbollah (because Lebanon won't/can't) then Lebanon will fight against them. How's that for cooperation?

And to put that quote in its proper context he said that in responce to Israeli's threat of a large scale invasion. Remember its *ok* to defend yourself and your own country. Isnt it?

Yonoz

Jul25-06, 04:27 PM

Yonoz

Jul25-06, 04:33 PM

Israel is also the aggressor in this situation. Its aggression is towards the whole of Lebanon in its attempt to smite the few.Israel is protecting its civilians. I fail to see how this can be viewed as aggression.

MeJennifer

Jul25-06, 04:37 PM

I fail to see how this can be viewed as aggression.
Well I do not. :smile:
And we have the right to our views right?

Attacking a civilian population is crystal clear agression in my views.

Anttech

Jul25-06, 04:38 PM

Not true. the kidnapping was carried out during a barrage of mortars and rockets on population centres and military bases.

Sure that was the means to capture the soliders, so they could exchange them for some of there own soliders, in what Hezbollah believe to be their land.

The civilian deaths in Lebanon are a result of Israel's response, coupled with Hezbollah intentionally putting them in danger's way by using them as human shields.

When someone takes a hostage and gets the hostage killed, the hostage taker is at least somewhat responsible.

Seems Israel is doing this exact thing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5212870.stm

The Israeli army has been accused of using Palestinian civilians as human shields in an operation in northern Gaza.

According to the Israeli human rights group, B'tselem, six civilians including two minors were subjected to the illegal tactic during an incursion into the town of Beit Hanoun last week.

Yonoz

Jul25-06, 04:39 PM

Hezbollah are a Terrorist organisation. Its not the first and it wont be the last. They are using well defined terrorist tactics, of gurrelia warfair of Hit and Run. It still doesnt give the right to Israel to kill so many Lebanesse people, just because they cant figure out who is a Hezbollah soldier and who isnt. Yes sure they are allowed to defend themselfs, but they are creating a massive humaitarian problem, and are (the Israeli's the ones who are pulling the trigger) killing many civilans in the process.However harsh the situation in Lebanon may be, Israeli civilians are also suffering and the Israeli leadership is commited to their security and safety first and foremost. No country can allow a terrorist organisation to affect its civilians to such an extent.
Not one of the critics here has yet presented a realistic alternative course of action.
The fact that Hizbullah is not the first nor the last terrorist organisation to use these well defined tactics does not affect Israel's duty to its citizens.

fargoth

Jul25-06, 04:41 PM

just out of curiousity - has anyone changed his mind\got a new perspective out of this debate?

i don't see an end to this thread, because no one seems to convince the other... you all respond to eachother, but the same arguments and answers are being posted over and over again.

and only because this one hasn't been posted yet, i'll add a quote for anttech:

DUBAI: Lebanon’s army is ready to defend the country against any land invasion by Israel, which has committed “massacres” in the Arab country, Lebanon’s defence minister told Al Arabiya television on Friday.

“There is national unity in the army. Christians, Shi’ites, Sunnis and Druze are all waiting for the hour Israel enters Lebanon from the ground, so they can teach it a lesson in return for the massacres they committed by air on innocent civilians, the army and infrastructure,” Elias al-Murr said.

“We know our capabilities and we know that we are not of the size of the Israeli army in order to defeat them, but we are standing on our land and in our trenches to defend our country.”

Israel warned Lebanese civilians to leave border villages on Friday and called up thousands of reserves in a possible prelude to a ground offensive that would expand its 10-day campaign against Hizbollah.

The offensive has killed more than 300 people, mainly civilians, and displaced half-a-million. Hizbollah has fired more than 900 missiles into Israel, killing 15 Israeli civilians. Nineteen Israeli soldiers have also been killed.

Asked if the Lebanese army would fight alongside Hizbollah, Mr Murr said: “We will not take part with anyone to defend Lebanon. Our constitutional duty is to defend Lebanon as a Lebanese army. This is our role.”

“But for the resistance to enter the army and fight alongside the army is not an option, because the army can’t fight like the resistance, nor can the resistance fight like the army,” he said.

The minister said Israeli attacks had not weakened the capabilities of the guerrilla group. Hizbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said on Thursday the group’s leadership structure was intact.

taken from here (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1790048.cms)
see? lebanon doesn't want help in disarming hizbullah - it doesn't want "the resistance" disarmed.
Lebanon wants to keep hizbullah as "resistance" because this way they can attack israel without taking responsibility for it.

with all that said, i think this shall be my last post on this thread, because it is going nowhere.

Yonoz

Jul25-06, 04:44 PM

Well I do not. :smile:
And we have the right to our views right?

Attacking a civilian population is crystal clear agression in my views.The only one attacking a civilian population is Hizbullah.

mbrmbrg

Jul25-06, 04:46 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrmbrg
I'd like to point out that Haluz does not say "For every katyusha barrage on Haifa, 10 Dahiya buildings chosen at random will be bombed." He says that 10 Dahiya buildings will be bombed.
It's all in what you want to read: while some would rather read "random buildings," I'd read, "10 buildings for which we have evidence of Hizbullah activity therein."

I read that the targets are optional and destroyed out of a desire for retribution rather than as a necessity.

Could you bring your source for that?

Cyrus

Jul25-06, 04:46 PM

fargoth

Jul25-06, 04:50 PM

Thanks for posting, goodbye.

you're a very nice troll

Yonoz

Jul25-06, 04:55 PM

Sure that was the means to capture the solidersSo what? Hizbullah's firing on civilians, for whatever purpose, is still inexcusable and forces the Israeli government and military to secure its inhabitants.
so they could exchange them for some of there own soliders, in what Hezbollah believe to be their land.There are no Hizbullah "soldiers" in Israel. In fact, there are no Hizbullah soldiers at all, seeing as they are a terrorist organisation, not a national military. Israel returned Hizbullah activists' bodies as an act of good will (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/25/world/main1075642.shtml) half a year ago. The soldiers were kidnapped on the Israeli side of the international border set by the UN to which Israel has fully withdrawn.
Seems Israel is doing this exact thingWhy don't you view these reports with the at least the same degree of doubt that you use when assessing Israel's motives for attacking Hizbullah.

Anttech

Jul25-06, 04:55 PM

see? lebanon doesn't want help in disarming hizbullah - it doesn't want "the resistance" disarmed. Selective reading? or Interpreting what he said as you want?

Asked if the Lebanese army would fight alongside Hizbollah, Mr Murr said: “We will not take part with anyone to defend Lebanon. Our constitutional duty is to defend Lebanon as a Lebanese army. This is our role.”

“But for the resistance to enter the army and fight alongside the army is not an option, because the army can’t fight like the resistance, nor can the resistance fight like the army,” he said.

The Resistance, if Israel bring massive ground troops into Lebanon will not be part of the army, because an army cant fight like a resistance movement. Its very logical really.

Lebanon of course wants Hizbollah disarmed, but they cant do it them selfs. Read up on Lebanons history and the last time the different sects of Lebanon fought one an other, you will see it was a bloody cival war.

Anttech

Jul25-06, 04:59 PM

So what? Hizbullah's firing on civilians, for whatever purpose, is still inexcusable and forces the Israeli government and military to secure its inhabitants. By bombing Beruit, when we all know Hezbollah is based in the south of Lebanon, why didnt the Israeli's send massive amount of its American Made Tanks to the Border and fight Hezbollah rather than punish the whole of Lebanon.

Why don't you view these reports with the at least the same degree of doubt that you use when assessing Israel's motives for attacking Hizbullah.That was taken from the BBC www site, who to my knowledge dont hold any grudge against Israel. In fact it is backed up with pictures and a ISRAELI human rights watchdog!

Yonoz

Jul25-06, 05:01 PM

Lebanon understand that the militay wing of Hezbollah are a problem. But with the same sentance they understand that Israel doesnt have a right to destroy Beruit and create 500,000 Refugies, as they try to smash hezbollah to the ground. Which as we *should* all know by now doesnt work, by looking at all the evidence of counter terrorism tactics.Israel is not trying to smash Hizbullah to the ground. It is trying to remove the threat to its civilians and return the kidnapped soldiers. Hizbullah can still exist as a political power, as long as it's disarmed.

Anttech

Jul25-06, 05:06 PM

Israel is not trying to smash Hizbullah to the ground. It is trying to remove the threat to its civilians and return the kidnapped soldiers. Hizbullah can still exist as a political power, as long as it's disarmed.

I find that very hard to believe considering Hezbullah, believes that Israel can exsist as long as it pulls out of land that it occupies in Lebanon, and it free's Hezbullah *soliders* That was there demands if I remember correctly

Sounds like that would have been a better solution than the 500,000 displaced civilians and 500 odd civilians and military personelle that have been killed on both sides so far. And may I add, little damage to Hezbollah, with probably more recruits than ever.

Look the only way to solve this is to spread the wealth, and for the international community to engage more on the ground.

Yonoz

Jul25-06, 05:13 PM

Lebanon of course wants Hizbollah disarmed, but they cant do it them selfs."of course"? You doubt everything Israel does but it's a matter "of course" that Lebanon wants Hizbullah disarmed?
If the Lebanese truly wanted to disarm Hizbullah they would have no problem, especially if they showed the resolve they show in statements about fighting the IDF.
Read up on Lebanons history and the last time the different sects of Lebanon fought one an other, you will see it was a bloody cival war.Of course no one cared because it was Arabs doing the killing. Anyway, why should Israeli civilians pay the price?

Anttech

Jul25-06, 05:20 PM

"of course"? You doubt everything Israel does but it's a matter "of course" that Lebanon wants Hizbullah disarmed?
If the Lebanese truly wanted to disarm Hizbullah they would have no problem, especially if they showed the resolve they show in statements about fighting the IDF.
Considering that Lebanon has been focusing on improving its ecconomy not its Army, something that a country has to do when its left in tatters, I doubt that the central goverment of Lebanon could disarm Hezbollah. Its analgous of a little child trying to take candy from a grown man.

Of course no one cared because it was Arabs doing the killing. Anyway, why should Israeli civilians pay the price?Considering Israeli's are Arabs (unless because the majority of the population came from elsewhere you dont deem yourself this)I find that remark a little of base no? Anyway I care, and would prefer that Lebanon was allowed to get back on its feet and become a beatiful democratic secular and multicultural as it can be! It needs help from the international community, it doesnt need to be smashed up into little bits (AGAIN).

AND whats more its in your interests to have a happy neighbour, isnt it?

slugcountry

Jul25-06, 05:26 PM

Of course no one cared because it was Arabs doing the killing.

.................................................. .........................................

Yonoz

Jul25-06, 05:27 PM

By bombing Beruit, when we all know Hezbollah is based in the south of LebanonHow do "we all know" this? Have you researched Hizbullah? Obviously you haven't because it's plain false.
why didnt the Israeli's send massive amount of its American Made Tanks to the Border and fight Hezbollah rather than punish the whole of Lebanon.Leave the operational planning to professionals. Hizbullah have only a fraction of their forces on the border, and those forces moved into population centers before the kidnapping. The rockets are fired into Israel from locations mainly in and around Tyre.Tanks can't destroy rocket launchers dozens of kilometers away, which is why aircraft are doing it.
Israel makes its own tanks.

That was taken from the BBC www site, who to my knowledge dont hold any grudge against Israel. In fact it is backed up with pictures and a ISRAELI human rights watchdog!I find the BBC can be very biased sometimes. Simply because the BBC quoted some Palestinians doesn't mean they've verified their claims. The only photo I see is the one showing a chaffed arm. Using civilians as human shield is against Israeli law and IDF commands, and the claims are being investigated. It certainly isn't a strategy as in the case of Hizbullah.

Anttech

Jul25-06, 05:28 PM

Yonzo, we both know (I hope) that Lebanon isnt your *real* enemy its Iran and Syria. A strong and happy Lebanon would help you, not hinder you.

Anyway, its late I am going to bed.

Take care my Israeli friend!

Anttech

Jul25-06, 05:30 PM

It certainly isn't a strategy as in the case of Hizbullah.

Maybe not, but those who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones, as the saying goes.

Anttech

Jul25-06, 05:33 PM

How do "we all know" this? Have you researched Hizbullah? Obviously you haven't because it's plain false.

Well, every heard of the term, "state within a state" It is refering to the grip that Hezbollah has on the south of Lebanon, and yes I have read up on them!

Cyrus

Jul25-06, 05:36 PM

you're a very nice troll

Well, maybe you are not getting anything out of the discussion, but I am. If you don't want to participate, then you can leave. I think this thread still has plenty of places to go, and I am enjoying it very much. There was no need to trash this thread with your comments Fargoth. As I said, goodbye.

Yonoz

Jul25-06, 05:38 PM

I find that very hard to believe considering Hezbullah, believes that Israel can exsist as long as it pulls out of land that it occupies in Lebanon, and it free's Hezbullah *soliders* That was there demands if I remember correctlyHizbullah does not recognise Israel's right to exist and calls for Israel's destruction. Israel does not occupy one inch of Lebanese soil. Hizbullah demands the release of hundreds of prisoners including convicted murderers, including Samir Kuntar (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A2740-2003May17):As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl's skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.Your use of the term soldiers in reference to Hizbullah is offending me, as I think it would anyone who was ever a soldier. There are plenty of other undisputed terms you can use.

Sounds like that would have been a better solution than the 500,000 displaced civilians and 500 odd civilians and military personelle that have been killed on both sides so far. And may I add, little damage to Hezbollah, with probably more recruits than ever.No it would not be a better solution since whenever it was done before it made Hizbullah extremely popular and simply encouraged them to kidnap more troops and attack Israeli civilians as you can see.

Look the only way to solve this is to spread the wealth, and for the international community to engage more on the ground.What do you mean by "spread the wealth"?

Yonoz

Jul25-06, 05:46 PM

Considering that Lebanon has been focusing on improving its ecconomy not its Army, something that a country has to do when its left in tatters, I doubt that the central goverment of Lebanon could disarm Hezbollah. Its analgous of a little child trying to take candy from a grown man.Can you support this speculation?

Considering Israeli's are Arabs (unless because the majority of the population came from elsewhere you dont deem yourself this)I find that remark a little of base no?Let's not get back into the whole descent debate. You know what I'm talking about.
Anyway I care, and would prefer that Lebanon was allowed to get back on its feet and become a beatiful democratic secular and multicultural as it can be!Not at the price of Israeli lives.
It needs help from the international community, it doesnt need to be smashed up into little bits (AGAIN).Please stop using these hysterical superlatives. Lebanon is quite intact.

AND whats more its in your interests to have a happy neighbour, isnt it?Of course it is, and it's what Israel tried to do last November when it returned the bodies of Hizbullah guerillas. Of course Israel can't allow it's citizens to be attacked.

Yonoz

Jul25-06, 05:48 PM

Yonzo, we both know (I hope) that Lebanon isnt your *real* enemy its Iran and Syria. A strong and happy Lebanon would help you, not hinder you.Absolutely. The price the Lebanese are paying is terrible but unfortunate as the circumstances may be, Israel has no choice.
Good night.

Yonoz

Jul25-06, 05:50 PM

Maybe not, but those who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones, as the saying goes.Yeah, proverbs are nice.

Yonoz

Jul25-06, 05:53 PM

Well, every heard of the term, "state within a state" It is refering to the grip that Hezbollah has on the south of Lebanon, and yes I have read up on them!They do have a grip on south Lebanon, but they also have a private neighbourhood in Beirut, I've covered it enough and it's described first hand in that NPR interview I asked you listen to.

Hans de Vries

Jul25-06, 05:55 PM

with all that said, i think this shall be my last post on this thread, because it is going nowhere.

So, true. Like the peace process which is going nowhere.

The only one attacking a civilian population is Hizbullah.

Logic is going nowhere...

Hope is going nowhere ...

What am I doing on this thread at the first place?

Regards, Hans

P.S. A welcome to the UN peace force...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5215366.stm

kyleb

Jul25-06, 06:20 PM

I read that the targets are optional and destroyed out of a desire for retribution rather than as a necessity.
Could you bring your source for that?
‘for every Katyusha barrage on Haifa, 10 Dahiya buildings will be bombed’

See the Main Entry here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retribution).

ak416

Jul25-06, 08:54 PM

good site giving you a more lebanese perspective.

edit:inappropriate, the site is intentionally inflammatory, stick to accredited news links

Anttech

Jul26-06, 02:17 AM

Annan accuses Israel over attack on UN post
<snip>
Since fighting between Israel and Hezbollah militants began two weeks ago, there had been several dozen incidents of firing close to UN peacekeepers and observers, including direct hits on nine positions, some of them repeatedly, a UN official said.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1197718.ece

If Israel cant manage not to hit UN peacekeepers. It puts a new perceptive on there apparent selective targeting. I am not saying that Israel did this on purpose, I dont think they did as a matter of fact. However if they cant even avoid the UN peacekeepers in the south of Lebanon, they wont be able to only hit Hezbollah targets.

So I think this enforces my claim that Lebanon is being smashed to bits!

Anttech

Jul26-06, 02:28 AM

Can you support this speculation?

Errmmm.. What is there too support? Are you dening that lebanon was gripped by civial war between 1975 and 1990? especially bad during the 80's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul26-06, 02:31 AM

Perhaps we should start a new thread, but anyway. Debating is the means to an end. The end is to convince your *opponent* that your view point is the correct one. Life isnt binary and neither is a debate about the Israel Hezbollah conflict. There is no *logical* 1 or 0 or right or wrong. So to assert that emmotions "get in the way" is a falacy in this context IMHO.

Agreed. If your going to bring your tool box to a debate why leave 40% of your tools at home, whilst I don't condone trolling flaming or any sort of deliberate provoking of hostilility, a gentle prod to see where or why someone has the beliefs they do is of no serious threat to the logic of a debate and is quite a revelation sometimes. I understand why mods have to preach logic and Vulacan emotionless rehtoric, but that's not how human discussion goes, especially in emotive threads such as this one. I can't find a page on this entiure thread where someone hasn't tried to strengthen there argument by using emotion, luckily, it would be very dry if people refrained from normal discussion practices :smile:

Yonoz

Jul26-06, 02:39 AM

If Israel cant manage not to hit UN peacekeepers. It puts a new perceptive on there apparent selective targeting. I am not saying that Israel did this on purpose, I dont think they did as a matter of fact. However if they cant even avoid the UN peacekeepers in the south of Lebanon, they wont be able to only hit Hezbollah targets.No one ever claimed otherwise. That is why Israel has dropped leaflets, broadcasted radio messages and sent recorded phone messages to Lebanese civilians in the danger zone asking them to get away.
So I think this enforces my claim that Lebanon is being smashed to bits!I fail to see how it does. You mentioned youself, Hizbullah "has a hold" over south Lebanon, this sort of thing is most likely to happen there. If anything this shows having UNIFIL in there is just another problem, not the solution.

Yonoz

Jul26-06, 02:41 AM

Errmmm.. What is there too support? Are you dening that lebanon was gripped by civial war between 1975 and 1990? especially bad during the 80's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_WarNo, I was referring to the second part:I doubt that the central goverment of Lebanon could disarm Hezbollah. Its analgous of a little child trying to take candy from a grown man

Anttech

Jul26-06, 02:51 AM

Anttech

Jul26-06, 02:53 AM

No one ever claimed otherwise. That is why Israel has dropped leaflets, broadcasted radio messages and sent recorded phone messages to Lebanese civilians in the danger zone asking them to get away.

How civil of you to let them know that you are about to destroy their homes, businesses and livelihood. :rolleyes:

Anttech

Jul26-06, 03:21 AM

To add to post #492:

FOUR UN observers were killed when their post was hit by an Israeli air strike in southern Lebanon last night.

A bomb struck the building occupied by Indian members of the team in Khiyam near the border with Israel.

Milos Struger, spokesman for the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, said: "There are casualties among the observers. A rescue and medical team are there but unable to clear the rubble."

Mr Struger said there were 14 other incidents of firing close to the position from the Israeli side. He added: "The firing continued even during the rescue operation." UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan last night demanded Israel launch an immediate inquiry.

He said: "I am shocked and distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17449385&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=u-n--bombed--name_page.html

Yonoz

Jul26-06, 03:47 AM

How civil of you to let them know that you are about to destroy their homes, businesses and livelihood. :rolleyes:It's more than anyone has ever done for Israeli civilians.

J77

Jul26-06, 03:48 AM

Isreal are in trouble now - messing with the UN.

Yonoz

Jul26-06, 03:55 AM

I would still refer you to the Civil war that gripped Lebanon for 15 years.

Why is it that the UN are in the south? and are you aware of its mandate?

To cut a long story short, they are there to help the weak Lebanese government bolster its control in the south.That Lebanese government has done nothing to improve its control over the South in 6 years, in violation of UNSC resolution 1559. The problem is not weakness, it's unwillingness.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul26-06, 04:02 AM

Hizbullah does not recognise Israel's right to exist and calls for Israel's destruction. Israel does not occupy one inch of Lebanese soil. Hizbullah demands the release of hundreds of prisoners including convicted murderers, including

Also they want the release of prisoners detained without trial don't forget.

Your use of the term soldiers in reference to Hizbullah is offending me, as I think it would anyone who was ever a soldier. There are plenty of other undisputed terms you can use.

I prefer Guerilla personally, or freedom fighter in some cases, not this one though.

A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids.

Yonoz you would make a poor military strategist, if Palestine is indeeed waiting to repulse Israel what benefit would there be in attacking Hezbollah, if they are also helping them to repulse Israel, they might fight along side them but to fight them? Not smart(of course it could all be posturing, bravado, bluff). Oh and they aren't as powerfull as Hezbollah who are firmly entrenched for this situation anyway from what I've read so it would be fruitless and ultimately suicidal. There equipment and training is outdated according to the link I gave. Perhaps they thought when they were rebuilding their country after the last tragedy of war they could invest in infrastructure and tourism and all the things that bring back commerce and vibrancy to a country instead of war, that way they could recover faster? Poor planning when you have Israel as a neighbour I suspect if that was their intent.

Anttech

Jul26-06, 04:02 AM

It's more than anyone has ever done for Israeli civilians. As you said its a terrorist organisation, you shouldnt be scoping to the same levels.
That Lebanese government has done nothing to improve its control over the South in 6 years, in violation of UNSC resolution 1559. The problem is not weakness, it's unwillingness.

There is a difference between cant and wont. Dont you get that? The government hasnt been able too, it cant. You dont seem to understand the ramifications of a 15 year civil war, and of course the Syrian's control up till 2005. Do you honestly think in 1 year of Lebanon independence since the "cedar" revolution, it could have eradicated Hezbollah?

Yonoz

Jul26-06, 04:30 AM

As you said its a terrorist organisation, you shouldnt be scoping to the same levels.I was referring to the Lebanese government.

There is a difference between cant and wont. Dont you get that? The government hasnt been able too, it cant. You dont seem to understand the ramifications of a 15 year civil war, and of course the Syrian's control up till 2005. Do you honestly think in 1 year of Lebanon independence since the "cedar" revolution, it could have eradicated Hezbollah?Again, not eradicated - disarmed.

Yonoz

Jul26-06, 04:32 AM

In Beirut, an Abyss Between Elegance and Chaos (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/world/middleeast/25beirut.html)In the days since Israeli planes began to bomb Lebanon, this seaside capital has been almost physically split in two, with its largely Shiite flank mutilated by Israeli airstrikes and most of the rest of the city remaining relatively unscathed, if quieter and emptier than usual.

The stark physical contrast reflects a deep and growing divide in Lebanese society between the less affluent, more religious Shiite south and the more urban center, largely of Sunni Muslims, Druse and Christians, which has built and benefited from a long-awaited economic boom.

Anttech

Jul26-06, 04:48 AM

And from the same link:

“The first thing I thought was, ‘How crazy to go wake up the monster,’ ” said Issam Saleh, a secular Shiite and an engineer who spends most of his days writing poetry in the garden at the Paul Restaurant. Hezbollah “knew exactly what would happen, but did it anyway.”

Even so, as the Israeli bombardment of the south drags on, dividing lines have softened: Even those who hate Hezbollah are horrified by the destruction. Now, as the war rages without any foreseeable end, almost everybody has been wondering where their embattled country can possibly go from here.
<snip>
But the longer Israeli planes continue to pound the country, the more the Lebanese find it difficult to stay angry with Hezbollah. Horrific scenes unfolded on the Printania screen: collapsed buildings and vast stretches of rubble in Nabatiya, in the south.

“We’re not Hezbollah supporters, but we cannot excuse what the Israelis are doing,” said Rima Beydoun, a secular Shiite who owns an advertising agency.

“We knew there would be repercussions, but no one expected they would be like this,” Mr. Salhab, the filmmaker, said of Shiite support for Hezbollah. “I am very critical of that part of my country, but I have to put it aside, because we are being destroyed.

“At this point, I can’t just say: Hezbollah, go to hell.”

The situation is made all the more complicated by the nature of Hezbollah. It functions as a civil aid group as well as a militia, helping with schools and in hospitals, and in many cases providing essential public services at times in the years of the war when the government was simply not able. It has a savvy media operation, with a spokesman who takes groups of journalists on tours of the devastation in southern Beirut with a truck that blares Hezbollah fighting songs from rows of speakers.

Hans de Vries

Jul26-06, 05:40 AM

That Lebanese government has done nothing to improve its control over the South in 6 years, in violation of UNSC resolution 1559. The problem is not weakness, it's unwillingness.

:bugeye: The Syrian troops just left 12 months ago. Thanks to the international community.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1437-2004Oct1.html

Regards, Hans

Hurkyl

Jul26-06, 08:11 AM

Life isnt binary and neither is a debate about the Israel Hezbollah conflict. There is no *logical* 1 or 0 or right or wrong. So to assert that emmotions "get in the way" is a falacy in this context IMHO.
You can reason with shades of grey, y'know. But as far as I can tell, this really has no bearing whatsoever on whether emotions "get in the way".

The civilan deaths are a result of Israel's response to that.
Of course, this is a straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back sort of thing. (at least, it appears that way to me)

But with the same sentance they understand that Israel doesnt have a right to destroy Beruit and create 500,000 Refugies, as they try to smash hezbollah to the ground.
Why not?

I'm sure you agree that Israel has the right to "smash Hezbollah to the ground"... or at least to strike at its capability to terrorize Israel. Upon what grounds do you deny them that right?

Well I do not.
And we have the right to our views right?

Attacking a civilian population is crystal clear agression in my views.
Yes you can have your views -- but this is a debate, not a poll. And, of course, posting your view means it's fair game for criticism. :wink:

It has been pointed out several times this thread that "attacking civilians" and "attacking militants hiding among civilians" are two very different things.

You're going to have to address this fact if you want to have any chance of getting anyone to listen to you who does not already agree with you.

Agreed. If your going to bring your tool box to a debate why leave 40% of your tools at home
If 40% of your "tool box" is logical fallacies, then I'd really prefer you left the whole thing at home. :tongue:

a gentle prod to see where or why someone has the beliefs they do is of no serious threat to the logic of a debate
Why not simply ask?

but that's not how human discussion goes, especially in emotive threads such as this one.
If everyone walked off a cliff, would you? :wink: We should not aspire to a low standard just because some people don't know how to have a rational discussion.

luckily, it would be very dry if people refrained from normal discussion practices
But there would be more progress. I'd prefer dry progress than... um... non-dry stagnation. If memory serves, I thought the thread was progressing rather nicely until "normal discussion practices" entered the fray, and have since felt the thread has slowed way down.

A year ago, a thread like this would have gone essentially nowhere, because all shreds of rational argument would be lost amongst the "normal discussion practices".

Anttech

Jul26-06, 08:27 AM

Why not?

I'm sure you agree that Israel has the right to "smash Hezbollah to the ground"... or at least to strike at its capability to terrorize Israel. Upon what grounds do you deny them that right?

So why not nuke them? it would be quicker, and 100% guaranteed to kill the majority of terrorists! Would you back this strategy?

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul26-06, 10:24 AM

I'm sure you agree that Israel has the right to "smash Hezbollah to the ground"... or at least to strike at its capability to terrorize Israel. Upon what grounds do you deny them that right?
.

It has the right to attack Hezbollah, but as has been mentioned having a 10 to 1 kill ratio(civillian to Hezbollah) Has upset alot of people including Israelis who have turned out to protest the level of violence. Dya think terrorism is defeated by violence? Or have you seen like us Brits what stamping on terrorists does to the situation?

Israel has lost any moral highground it had in this situation and believe me, I was of the opinion that at least Israel units didn't run into packed nightclubs and blow themselves up, target civillians, at least it had made efforts to offer peace in the past , now I'm thinking it took a situation that was about two soldiers and turned it into an excuse to indiscriminately ruin a countries recovery and kill 380(forget how many it is now) Civillians and further alienate arab countries for years to come? as well as turn the west(minus big brother) Against it. If you ask me it looks like Hezbollah has the upper hand at the moment anyway if you're looking at intangibles.

Using emotion has nothing to do with logical fallacy(if your doing that your not using it properly) E.g if I say my entire familly was killed in such and such and therefore I know first hand the suffering going on at the moment, this is why it is remarkable that I still feel there could be peace because argument x, how is this logical fallacy? How is giving gravitas to an argument not a valid tool?

But there would be more progress. I'd prefer dry progress than... um... non-dry stagnation. If memory serves, I thought the thread was progressing rather nicely until "normal discussion practices" entered the fray, and have since felt the thread has slowed way down.

A year ago, a thread like this would have gone essentially nowhere, because all shreds of rational argument would be lost amongst the "normal discussion practices"

I don't think we're on the same page at all, I'm not talking about ranting or slinging useless trite phraseology around in anger, I'm talking about mixing emotive language into your argument, like I think encouraging hatred from Arabs is pointless. I'd point point out some passages where this is cleverly done, or where it the argument is stale and emotionless, but It might be considered insulting. Suffice to say the level of emotion has not diminished since the start, I think your referring to something else when you disparrage argument, if you've ever discussed anything in public you must know how effective your tone of voice is in conveying meaning, there are people who can do it with inflection and there are people who can do it with writting, I'm not one of them I have no real literary talent, but some people are masters of using clever argument mixed with emotive phrasing to really hammer home their points. Like I say it's 40% of the art of convincing argument at least from my experience. People like content but they like something they can empathise or feel too.

Someone once said someone wont remember what you said or what you did but they will remember how you made them feel. I forget who and they said it better :smile:

Yonoz

Jul26-06, 10:26 AM

:bugeye: The Syrian troops just left 12 months ago. Thanks to the international community.Israel removed thousands of families from their homes despite violent resistance and major civil disorder. The Gaza pullout was completed less than 12 months from the decision to carry it out. A large number of these families lived in tents until last week. Their property is baking inside containers stored in giant makeshift yards. They've lost their homes, workplaces, businesses - entire communities, broken and spread out in temporary solutions, doing the beaurocracy limbo with what savings they have. The Israeli public supported this move, and its government executed it with unbreakable resolve.
Restoring the Lebanese government's control over south Lebanon does not require an air force, a navy, or shiny new APC's. All it takes is motivation. If the Lebanese government is not motivated enough to assert its duties towards the Lebanese people, Israel is not automatically indebted with that duty. Had the Lebanese done the smallest step towards complying with UNSC resolution 1559 I guarantee you the Israeli leadership would not have responded so harshly. We are tired of being the grown-up.
There are some basic things you would expect to be done in the first 12 months. Discussions in the parliament. Policy declarations by the government. Mediation. Nothing was done and the expressed policy was one of complicity. Hizbullah is a coalition partner, they have a minister in the government. They are governing some of the country, completely challenged.
There is only so much we can take. Hizbullah poses a serious risk to Israeli civilians and it is our government's responsibility to protect them, even if it costs our nation a grave price. It's a shame anyone is suffering, including the Lebanese people, but the situation requires it.

mbrmbrg

Jul26-06, 10:32 AM

‘for every Katyusha barrage on Haifa, 10 Dahiya buildings will be bombed’

See the Main Entry here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retribution).

Right, now we're back where we started. "for e/ katyusha barrage on haifa, [there will be retribution]," correct?

Your link gives 2 definitions for retribution:
1. Something justly deserved, recompense
2. Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment.

Neither denote if the buildings to be targeted are suspicious in their own right, though def#1 connotes that they are, and def#2 connotes that they are not.

Still all in how you want to read it.

kyleb

Jul26-06, 11:39 AM

Look down the page a bit for the definition titled "Main Entry."

Yonoz

Jul26-06, 11:46 AM

Here's an article about Israel's most prominent Arab affairs correspondent, Zvi Yehezkeli: Nassrallah and me (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/742277.html) [sic].He was born in 1970. His father emigrated as a one-year-old from Iraq; his mother was born en route from Kurdistan to Israel. He says he was not the greatest student. In the army he served in an infantry unit and after his discharge he traveled abroad for six years and worked as a security guard at embassies. Upon his return, he felt an urge to take up Middle East studies. He did his undergraduate degree in that subject and in communications. His master's thesis was based on trips to the territories "with a backpack on my back, just like I did abroad." After that he was Army Radio's Palestinian affairs correspondent, worked for a while at Channel 1's "Yoman" and from there arrived at Channel 10.

On the show, "London and Kirschenbaum" he has a daily spot that is also broadcast during these days of fighting and covers the Arab world from diverse angles. "From the gyms in Dubai to the ringtones in mosques in Damascus and single women in Saudi Arabia," he says and quickly explains: "It's just as important to show the faces behind Assad or Mubarak. I say, 'these are people just like you. Let's take a look at them.' We have prompted a revolution in this regard."

Bystander

Jul26-06, 11:53 AM

(snip)Dya think terrorism is defeated by violence? Or have you seen like us Brits what stamping on terrorists does to the situation?(snip)

Settles it right down --- you "Brits" hanged 400 Thugs, imprisoned another 4000, and killed a few hundred to a thousand in straight up fighting in India. That settled that. Same approach works today --- you run into a "Charles Manson" type, string 'im up rather than feeding him on the taxpayers' money, and civilized behavior becomes preferable to infantile temper tantrums.

Anttech

Jul26-06, 12:01 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5217176.stm
UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon contacted Israeli troops 10 times before an Israeli bomb killed four of them, an initial UN report says.

The post was hit by a precision-guided missile after six hours of shelling, diplomats familiar with the probe say.
The four unarmed UN observers from Austria, Canada, China and Finland, died after their UN post in the town of Khiam was hit by an Israeli air strike on Tuesday.

The UN report says each time the UN contacted Israeli forces, they were assured the firing would stop.

A senior Irish soldier working for the UN forces had warned the Israelis six times that their bombardment was endangering the lives of UN staff, Ireland's foreign ministry said.

Settles it right down --- you "Brits" hanged 400 Thugs, imprisoned another 4000, and killed a few hundred to a thousand in straight up fighting in India. That settled that. Same approach works todayWas that not in the Victorian ages? Schrodinger's Dog was referring to the IRA who the English formed a peace with, who incidentally were funded by US Citizen.

mbrmbrg

Jul26-06, 12:08 PM

Was that not in the Victorian ages? Schrodinger's Dog was referring to the IRA who the English formed a peace with, who incidentally were funded by US Citizen.

Can you explain the essential difference between dealing with Indian terrorists in the Victorian era and dealing with the IRA a few years ago?
Why should Hezbollah vs Israel be compared to IRA vs Great Britain rather than Indian terrorists vs Great Britain?

mbrmbrg

Jul26-06, 12:14 PM

I'd like to point out that Haluz does not say "For every katyusha barrage on Haifa, 10 Dahiya buildings chosen at random will be bombed." He says that 10 Dahiya buildings will be bombed.
It's all in what you want to read: while some would rather read "random buildings," I'd read, "10 buildings for which we have evidence of Hizbullah activity therein."

I read that the targets are optional and destroyed out of a desire for retribution rather than as a necessity.

Beg your pardon, you're correct on the definition of retribution, but above is where "retribution" came up in the first place. Your reading vs my reading. I think this sub-debate is just stating opinion at this point. Agree to disagree?
(and sorry for wasting your time quibbling over retribution)

kyleb

Jul26-06, 12:16 PM

You didn't quote my reading there, you quoted where you made your own up and tried to pass it off as mine.

Anttech

Jul26-06, 12:58 PM

Can you explain the essential difference between dealing with Indian terrorists in the Victorian era and dealing with the IRA a few years ago?

If I must :rolleyes:

Essentially the difference is about 100 years.

edward

Jul26-06, 01:07 PM

I can not accept that the bombing of the UN outpost was an unfortunate accident. That post had been in Southern Lebanon since 1978 and the blue flag was flying.(CNN this morning) This reminds me of the Israeli attack on the U.S. ship Liberty in 1968. The ship was a spy ship operated by the NSA. Why Israel bombed and straffed the Liberty was never really disclosed.

In this case Israel had recently requested that the USA send them preciscion guided munitions. The bombing of the UN outpost may have been a little reminder to speed up the delivery.

Yonoz

Jul26-06, 01:21 PM

Jenin massacre syndrome (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3280038,00.html) by Sever Plocker, a traditionally left wing news editor.

edward

Jul26-06, 01:34 PM

Jenin massacre syndrome (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3280038,00.html) by Sever Plocker, a traditionally left wing news editor.

Is this supposed to be the excuse for everything??
http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.pdf

Yonoz

Jul26-06, 01:43 PM

Is this supposed to be the excuse for everything??Did I say it was an excuse for anything? What happened to "other side of the coin"? What happened to "take X with a grain of salt"?

edward

Jul26-06, 02:09 PM

Did I say it was an excuse for anything? What happened to "other side of the coin"? What happened to "take X with a grain of salt"?

OK I see your point, but did you ever stop to think that you may be creating more terrorists than you are killing by using Lebanon as you're punching bag?

Yonoz

Jul26-06, 02:16 PM

OK I see your point, but did you ever stop to think that you may be creating more terrorists than you are killing by using Lebanon as you're punching bag?No one is using Lebanon as their punching bag. More than 1400 rockets have landed in Israel so far, not counting mortar shells. That is a clear threat to Israeli civilians. These weapons and their operators are hiding inside a civilian population. Israel is forced to defend its citizens, even at the price of raising anger.
BTW I suggest you look at the article about Zvi Yehezkeli, I admire the man. Israelis are not blind to the matters in Lebanon.

slugcountry

Jul26-06, 02:55 PM

Nor is Lebanon blind to the matters of Israel - has it ever occurred to you that an invasion and world-wide attention is exactly what hizbollah was after?

Yonoz

Jul26-06, 02:59 PM

Nor is Lebanon blind to the matters of Israel - has it ever occurred to you that an invasion and world-wide attention is exactly what hizbollah was after?Even so should we just sit while our cities are being attacked? It seems to elude many people that Israel is being attacked here in the most vile way. I know of no country that would allow that to continue.

Anttech

Jul26-06, 03:11 PM

Even so should we just sit while our cities are being attacked?

Nope but cutting your own nose off to spite your face isnt going to help either. Which is what you are doing.

Yonoz

Jul26-06, 03:12 PM

Nope but cutting your own nose off to spite your face isnt going to help either. Which is what you are doing.Spare the obscure proverbs. Can you offer an alternative way of protecting Israeli civilians?

kyleb

Jul26-06, 10:37 PM

A practical example would be; the Israelis who go into rebuild the houses of Palestinians don't suffer the same hostilities faced by the ones who tear the down.

Yonoz

Jul27-06, 02:04 AM

Let's not confuse Lebanon and the occupied territories - it's nothing short of ignorance. My question still stands - can anyone offer an alternative way for the Israeli leadership to protect its civilians?

Anttech

Jul27-06, 02:11 AM

Its all inter-related, and to dismiss the problems in the occupied territories as nothing to do with the current campaign would be ignorant

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul27-06, 02:30 AM

Yonoz

Jul27-06, 02:59 AM

Its all inter-related, and to dismiss the problems in the occupied territories as nothing to do with the current campaign would be ignorantStill, I asked what alternatives there are for Israel to protect its civilians from the rockets fired out of Lebanon, and was met with not-so-much-as-an-answer-but-some-sort-of-unrelated-example(?) regarding the rebuilding of Palestinian houses, which only occured in Gaza and the West Bank.
Perhaps you have a real answer to my question.

kyleb

Jul27-06, 03:27 AM

Let's not confuse Lebanon and the occupied territories - it's nothing short of ignorance.
You know those occupied territories have cultural and religious significance all Muslims, as we already agreed upon here (http://physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1038487&postcount=90). I'm also sure you know Hezbollah is looking to exchange your solders for Palestinian prisoners along with their own people. So please don't try to play this of as me being ignorant, here as that is most certainly not the case; and feigning ignorance to claim otherwise only serves to ignore my point.
My question still stands - can anyone offer an alternative way for the Israeli leadership to protect its civilians?
And my answer still stands as a practical example. In general terms I'll defer to a man much wiser than myself, Ramana Maharshi, who expanded upon an ancient Buddhist teaching with his statement; "Wanting to transform the world without discovering one's true self is like trying to cover the whole world with leather to avoid the pain of walking on stones and thorns. It is much simpler to wear shoes."

Anttech

Jul27-06, 03:50 AM

Yonoz

Jul27-06, 04:25 AM

Yonzo,

Perhaps you would like to re-read some of my post in this thread. I have given alternatives already.

Let me outline them again.

International Peace Keeping force in South Lebanon, with teeth, and the remit of bolstering up the Lebanon Governments control.So far there hasn't been a single agreement on such a force - no one is willing to put their troops in Lebanon - and this is during hostilities, when it's on the top of everyone's priorities! I've shown you Israel's appeals to the UN and the weak response they recieved. The ball was in the UN and Lebanon's court, and they dropped it.

Stop all hostilities, and stop demanding the impossible right now, ie Hezbollah to disarm.Our civilians are being attacked. Do you really expect us not to defend ourselves?! You are so "understanding" to terrorists and radicals but you do not recognise this basic right of self-defence? Get some sense man, this isn't a random shooting, it's not a wave of suicide attacks. It's been two weeks, and normal life in the north of Israel is paralyzed. More than a third of the population moved away. The rest are in shelters. Businesses are closed. Public transport is intermittent. Home carers for the elderly don't show up. There aren't enough firefighters to deal with all the fires, they're only concentrating on preventing the fires from reaching population centres. No country in the world would allow this to happen.

If Hostilities have to continue, appropriate human rights, must be followed, and civilians should not be targeted, and UN convoys need to not be bombed and allowed to help the 600,000 refugees and displaced civilians.Everything is done in accordance with international law. Civilians aren't targetted. UN convoys have been operating for over a week now. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is coordinating the relief effort with the military. One of history's largest naval evacuations took place without a hitch, in full coordination with the Navy. A few Lebanese wounded are treated in Israeli hospitals. A landing strip in Beirut has been authorized for humanitarian purposes, and the Jordanian Military used it to deploy a mobile hospital. Israel has no interest in harming the Lebanese people.

Appropriate NEUTRAL mediator between Israel and Palistein for future pull out of occupied territories.The government has declared and began legislation for the second phase of the disengagement plan. There is mediation between Israel and the Hamas leadership regarding the cessation of hostilites in the Gaza strip and the return of kidnapped soldier.

Less lopsided politics and help from USA.I'm not familiar with the term "lopsided politics", but it sounds like catch-phrase. Let's try and stick to the specifics. I don't see how accepting less help from the USA is beneficial to Israel. Why not just say "stop buying weapons" or "don't use shelters so you get a higher civilian death count". Makes just as much sense.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul27-06, 04:42 AM

Still, I asked what alternatives there are for Israel to protect its civilians from the rockets fired out of Lebanon, and was met with not-so-much-as-an-answer-but-some-sort-of-unrelated-example(?) regarding the rebuilding of Palestinian houses, which only occured in Gaza and the West Bank.
Perhaps you have a real answer to my question.

Sorry I had 30 seconds to answer you, I knew what you meant and was being flippant.:smile: honestly no offence intended. I was going to put a smilee on it but I never got time, very busy ATM.

I think people have already mentioned that you should have workjed with the Lebanese government from the start, I also think something as small fry as this should not of been used as an excuse to tackle Hezbollah (hezbollah needs a carefully considered strategy IMO, not a kneejerk over reaction) You mentioned that you can't always excpected to be the grown up, I disagree in the situation you are in that's what you should be trying to uphold in every situation(up 'til now the wolrd has seen /Israel as the more moderate and "grown" up party, this works in your favour in diplomatic meetings,I tihnk it's wise to always appear to be thoughtful in your approach to situations, look what happens when you don't.

Initial solution, use your experienced intelligence gorups to locate the soldiers, most likely out come to that was they are going to be killed before you find them, and creating a war in Lebanon is not exactly going to make them easy to find, if you are at least pretending what this is about you blew it by making there recovery almost impossible.

OK as Kofi Anan said in his adress to the security councli - I'm afraid I'm going to have to find this later - but he mentioned that he saw this as an excuse used by Israel to take out Hezbollah. he condemened Hezbollah straight off the bat though, he advised working towards a cease fire and condemend Israel for the civillian caualties whilst acknowledging Israels right to tackle Hezbolah, he was carefull to remain impartial, with this in mind, it might of been wise after the initial phase mentioned above to also seek out the UN and or the US and ask if it would be possible to insert a security force in the area with Israeli cooperation, in a joint land offensive to secure the area, possibly with the Help of the Labenese government also, with US logistics and methods the civillian casualties would have been much less(they are well aware of how much grief hitting hospitals etc can bring there way) Also the west would have seen a will to resolve this situation in a "diplomatic" manner at least in the planning stages. Not being an expert I have no idea if this would have been viable, but it sounds reasonable. we're all armchair generalling this one :)

Anttech

Jul27-06, 04:46 AM

Our civilians are being attacked. Do you really expect us not to defend ourselves?! You are so "understanding" to terrorists and radicals but you do not recognise this basic right of self-defence? Get some sense man, this isn't a random shooting, it's not a wave of suicide attacks.

You are kidding yourself if you believe what is going on could be called self-defence. You have killed over 400 people in Lebanon now. Hezbollah have killed about 40 Israeli's. What is happening is you are attacking Hezbollah, using the smoke screen of self-defence, "Well they started it". You are going for the proverbial jugular. Which is very short sighted I may add.

Look I understand your basic need to defend yourselfs, but I do not understand why you are using such brutal force.

Look at the bloody stats:

600,000 people in 2 weeks have been made refugees or displaced.
400 people (mostly civilian) have been killed
All major Bridges have been destroyed, and some eyewitnesses are saying also the foundations have been bombed, which I find peculiar.
You have attacked and disrupted most Television stations
You have bombed the Beruit Airport Runway
You have completely annihilated the south of Beruit
You have attacked the UN observers
You have Bomb Civilian truck convoys
Eye witness have stated that Factories making food have been hit
Major Roads used to evacuate Displaced civilians have been hit
Aid convoys have been hit by Israeli planes

And still the US is shipping more rockets and ammo to you!

This is not self defence, its an all out attack on Lebanon.

Anttech

Jul27-06, 05:05 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5219360.stm
All southerners terrorists'

He added that Israel had given the civilians of southern Lebanon ample time to quit the area and therefore anyone still remaining there can be considered Hezbollah supporters.

"All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah," Mr Ramon said.

What a clever man. :rolleyes:

Perhaps there are people who are too scared to leave, or physically cant. You cant give yourselfs a carte blancs to kill anybody you see.

"We received yesterday at the Rome conference permission from the world... to continue the operation," Justice Minister Haim Ramon said.
Apart from the UN stating very clearly that the Hostilities must stop.

Yonoz

Jul27-06, 05:26 AM

You are kidding yourself if you believe what is going on could be called self-defence. You have killed over 400 people in Lebanon now. Hezbollah have killed about 40 Israeli's. What is happening is you are attacking Hezbollah, using the smoke screen of self-defence, "Well they started it". You are going for the proverbial jugular. Which is very short sighted I may add.Should we apologize for having too low a casualty count?!!
Should we apologize for building and maintaining bomb shelters, at great expense may I add? Should we apologize for having an experienced state of the art military? Should we apologize for the fact that our population and economy are strong? Should we apologize for governing our own country? Should we apologize for Hizbullah's human shield strategy? Should we apologize for trying to stop the daily firing of dozens of rockets at our cities? THIS IS A SERIOUS RISK TO OUR CIVILIAN POPULATION. WE'RE LUCKY TO HAVE SO FEW CASUALTIES. WE'RE LUCKY NO ROCKETS LANDED IN THE PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES IN HAIFA. Show me one country that would behave differently when faced with such a grave threat to its citizens.

Look I understand your basic need to defend yourselfs, but I do not understand why you are using such brutal force.It is not brutal force. See that NY Times article.BEIRUT, Lebanon, July 24 — The Paul Restaurant is still serving elegant lunches of prosciutto and chèvre. At the Printania, an elegant hotel on a hill east of the capital, stylish guests sip Arabic coffee near a glass display case of éclairs and chilled chocolate mousse.FYI the restaurants in Haifa are all closed.

Look at the bloody stats:

600,000 people in 2 weeks have been made refugees or displaced.So has 1/3rd of northern Israel's population.
400 people (mostly civilian) have been killed1400 rockets landed in Israel, each with the potential to kill a large number of people by expelling supersonic pellets to high distances. One such rocket killed 8 railway workers. Hizbullah is trying to hit the petrochemical industries in Haifa, in a hope to create an environmental disaster.
All major Bridges have been destroyed, and some eyewitnesses are saying also the foundations have been bombed, which I find peculiar.
Major Roads used to evacuate Displaced civilians have been hit.Those are legitimate targets that have prevented the flow of more rockets and launchers closer to the border, distancing many Israelis from danger. The foundations play a major role in keeping the bridge up as you may know, it's quite probable they'd get damaged if the bridge is knocked down.
You have attacked and disrupted most Television stationsIsrael has attacked Hizbullah's Al-Manar TV and radio station, and has bombed communication infrastructure such as antennae that Hizbullah uses.
You have bombed the Beruit Airport RunwayIn full compliance with international law, to stop more weapons coming in and the kidnapped soldiers moved out.
You have completely annihilated the south of BeruitOnly the Dahiya neighbourhood was majorly affected and that neighbourhood was a giant Hizbullah compund.
You have attacked the UN observers
You have Bomb Civilian truck convoysUnfortunate incidents that need to be inverstigated. Civilians and and the UN are not targetted intentionally. Entire convoys were not attacked. Many more trucks carrying weapons have also been destroyed, you don't hear that on the news, do you?
Eye witness have stated that Factories making food have been hitFood is in no shortage in Lebanon. Eyewitness reports are not facts.
Aid convoys have been hit by Israeli planesAbsolutely false.

And still the US is shipping more rockets and ammo to you!Of course it is. Iran is also shipping more weapons to Hizbullah. Why don't you run up to complain to them?

This is not self defence, its an all out attack on Lebanon.False.

Yonoz

Jul27-06, 05:31 AM

What a clever man. :rolleyes:

Perhaps there are people who are too scared to leave, or physically cant. You cant give yourselfs a carte blancs to kill anybody you see.Seriously, if you're still in south Lebanon it's not because you're scared or disabled.

Apart from the UN stating very clearly that the Hostilities must stop.Then let them enforce UNSC resolution 1559.

Anttech

Jul27-06, 05:39 AM

Should we apologize for having too low a casualty count?!!No you should apologise to lebanon for killing so many innocent people.

Should we apologize for building and maintaining bomb shelters, at great expense may I add? No
Should we apologize for having an experienced state of the art military? nope, but you should probably say thank-you.

Should we apologize for the fact that our population and economy are strong? Nope
Should we apologize for governing our own country? Nope, but you should acknowledge that your imediate neighbours are suffering, and your 'strong' population and 'strong' ecconomy should be helping them
Should we apologize for Hizbullah's human shield strategy? No but you should not use it as an excuse, which is what you are clearly doing Should we apologize for trying to stop the daily firing of dozens of rockets at our cities?Nope, but your war has actually increased the amount of rockets, so you goverment should be appologising to you for being wrong about its tactics

Aid convoys have been hit by Israeli planes
Absolutely false.
Aid convoys have been hit by Israeli air strikes in the south. Six Lebanese Red Cross paramedics were wounded in an Israeli strike on Sunday http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5216326.stm

Yonoz

Jul27-06, 05:49 AM

No you should apologise to lebanon for killing so many innocent people.I've yet to see anyone apologize to Israel for Israeli civilians killed. Our civilians are purposefuly targetted, theirs aren't. We should not apologize for protecting our own civilians.
nope, but you should probably say thank-you.I thought you were against foreign influence on countries in this region. Sudden change of heart?
Nope, but you should acknowledge that your imediate neighbours are suffering, and your 'strong' population and 'strong' ecconomy should be helping themOh but we are. Believe me, it would be easiest to end this quickly with a massive bombardment, without waiting for civilians to leave. We could carpet bomb entire villages like has been done by many other countries in the recent past. Instead we send our troops in, and some of them don't come back. That is a price WE PAY to avoid unnecessary civilian deaths. You don't seem to appreciate that at all.
No but you should not use it as an excuse, which is what you are clearly doingAn excuse? Shame on you. Hizbullah are attacking us from behind innocent people and now you're saying we're using that as an excuse? Is every time Israel is attacked simply an excuse to kill Arabs? Who do you think we are?
Nope, but your war has actually increased the amount of rockets, so you goverment should be appologising to you for being wrong about its tacticsHahaha now we're guilty of being fired upon. Hyppocrite.

Anttech

Jul27-06, 05:58 AM

You like to read what you want, dont you?
An excuse? Shame on you. Hizbullah are attacking us from behind innocent people and now you're saying we're using that as an excuse? Is every time Israel is attacked simply an excuse to kill Arabs? Who do you think we are?You are Arabs with a different religion that others, but you are Arabs neither the less. You are using the fact that (disgusting as it is) hezbollah are using gurrilea warfair tactics against you, as the excuse behind the disproportional amount of Lebanese lifes that have been taken.

nope, but you should probably say thank-you.
I thought you were against foreign influence on countries in this region. Sudden change of heart?
I was being Ironic! Its part of the problem you know, the lopsided generosity that has been shown to Israel as oppose to any other ME country. People arent stupid, they see this with there own eyes. Look at Palestine, its literally, inside Israel yet it is so poor.

I've yet to see anyone apologize to Israel for Israeli civilians killed. Our civilians are purposefully targeted, theirs aren't. We should not apologize for protecting our own civilians.Honestly, dont take this the wrong way, because it isnt directed at you: I dont believe that you (The Israli army) are not purposefully targeting civilians. This was proven to the world after you purposefully targeted a UN Observation post, using Laser guided Missiles after the Unarmed Observers had radioed to your Army 10 times they were there. That was the UN, who are protected up to the eyeballs with treaties and international coverage. I can imagine what must be happening in Beruit to ordinary noncombantants. And as a matter of fact, we dont need to imagine, we can just go and read up on the last time you shelled Beruit in the conquest of defeting the PLO.

Anttech

Jul27-06, 06:21 AM

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/israel.lebanon.FINAL2.pdf

During the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2005, Israel has actually received
more in U.S. military aid than it has in U.S. arms deliveries. Over this time period
Israel received $10.5 billion in Foreign Military Financing – the Pentagon’s biggest
military aid program – and $6.3 billion in U.S. arms deliveries. The aid figure is
larger than the arms transfer figure because it includes financing for major arms
agreements for which the equipment has yet to be fully delivered. The most prominent of
these deals is a $4.5 billion sale of 102 Lockheed Martin F-16s to Israel. “When it comes
to getting arms from the U.S., Israel has money in the bank,” noted Hartung.
There are precedents for U.S. criticism of Israel’s use of weapons in human rights abuses,
including “extrajudicial killings” and “excessive use of force.” In the State Department’s
human rights reports for 2003, 2004, and 2005, incidents mentioned include missile
strikes on a refugee camp that killed six people and wounded 19; the shooting and killing
of four Palestinian children; the demolition of Palestinian homes using tank shells, heavy
machine guns, and rockets (deemed an excessive use of force); the use of rocket fire in
targeted killing of leaders of Hamas; the killing of 47 civilian bystanders in an operation
aimed at suspected terrorists in the occupied territories; and the use of tank shells,
machine-gun rounds and rockets fired from aircraft against Palestinian towns and cities

Surely This should stop until we can establish if the Israeli's are not breaking human rights laws, like what happened when Regan was in power!

During the last major Israeli incursion into Lebanon, in 1981, the Reagan administration
cut off U.S. military aid and arms deliveries for ten weeks while it investigated whether
Israel was using weapons for “defensive purposes,” as required under U.S. law.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul27-06, 06:59 AM

A few things are clear, the west has condemned Israel for it's "attrocities", UN officials visitng the area have already mentioned the breaches of humanitarian law in Israels attacks(you can specualte all you like on what that will mean) It's going to be hard to convince anyone what you did is right or justified under the considerable pressure from outside the Middle East, it's too late for that now anyway, you should be looking at damage limitation ATM, making the utmost effort to only target military targets and avoiding areas where this is not possible, maybe using small elite forces to take out areas where civillians still remain, i.e being more discriminatory. Reputation repair.

The UN cannot enforce any resolution against Israel particularly not the ones you mentioned, the US will veto any action taken against Israel atm, which is why many of the 170+ resolutions you face have never been enforced, however we appreciate when you try to conform to them of your own free will, because there is no threat implicit in them, sanctions can and will not be imposed while big brother is escalating this one sided campaign and refusing to acknowledge the existence of the other sides involved. It is plain to see that the US has moved away from a more impartial overseer and part of the blame for the middle East situation should be laid at there door for losing perspective.

Another point I'd like to make is that you guys are repeating yoursleves a fair bit, and both of you are ignoring good points made by the other. :smile: I think personally the discussion needs to move forward because playing the blame game against Israel is all very well but 20 pages later twe still haven't convinced Yonoz that what Israel did is wrong, do you think there is much chance we ever can?

OK Yonoz I put up a suggestion of how to handle the situation, it appears you had no interest in someone answering your question or that you did not like my answer, in either case can we ask what you would have done in this situation, everything the same or perhaps changed your tack? Time for you assume the position of arm chair general, since you are obviously in the most knowledgeable position, living as you do in Israel and having had experience with the situation first hand, what is it you would have done, would do now, and will do to tackle the situation in the future?

Hurkyl

Jul27-06, 08:05 AM

You are Arabs with a different religion that others, but you are Arabs neither the less. You are using the fact that (disgusting as it is) hezbollah are using gurrilea warfair tactics against you, as the excuse behind the disproportional amount of Lebanese lifes that have been taken.
If you're going to accuse Israel if actually wanting to slaughter Lebanese citizens, then come right out and say it.

Anttech

Jul27-06, 08:57 AM

Anttech

Jul27-06, 10:16 AM

http://www.itv.com/news/world_783f5cda9528072c5e0da70ea805110e.html
The second in command to Osama bin Laden has warned that al-Qaeda will not stand idle while Israelis "burn the Muslim brothers in Gaza and Lebanon".

In a reference to the US and its allies the deputy leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, said that the bombs being dropped on Lebanon "are not purely Israeli but provided and financed by all the crusaders alliance countries."

In a taped message broadcast by the Arab satellite network al-Jazeera, Zawahiri said that al-Qaeda now saw "all the world as a battlefield open in front of us."

Zawahiri wore a grey robe and white turban. A picture of the burning World Trade Centre was on the wall behind him along with pictures of two other militants.
Blah Blah Blah. of course Al-Qaeda had to get in on the action. So I wonder where they stand on the Christians and Jews that are being bombed by Israel in Lebanon? I wonder what exactly they intend on doing? Considering they are Sunni's not Sh'ites.

mbrmbrg

Jul27-06, 11:51 AM

Are you trying to get an emotional reaction, Hurkyl?

It seems to me like the last two pages have been pretty emotional all around, maybe the al queada angle won't get so emotional (unless, of course, some of our posters are al qeada members:wink: :wink: )

This was in yesterday's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/opinion/26haykel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

what if everyone just imploded out of frustration?? in my dreams...

Yonoz

Jul27-06, 04:36 PM

Just popped in to post this: Annan's Claims On Casualties May Unravel (http://www.nysun.com/article/36860)A Canadian U.N. observer, one of four killed at a UNIFIL position near the southern Lebanese town of Khiyam on Tuesday, sent an e-mail to his former commander, a Canadian retired major-general, Lewis MacKenzie, in which he wrote that Hezbollah fighters were "all over" the U.N. position, Mr. MacKenzie said. Hezbollah troops, not the United Nations, were Israel's target, the deceased observer wrote.

"We've received e-mails from him a few days ago and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position ‘for tactical necessity — not being targeted,'" Mr. MacKenzie said he wrote.

In one such e-mail, obtained by The New York Sun, Hess-von Kruedener wrote about heavy IDF artillery and aerial bombardment "within 2 meters of our position." The Israeli shooting, he added, "has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity."

The correspondence between the trooper and former commander amounted to "veiled speech in the military," Mr. MacKenzie, who once commanded the U.N. troops in Bosnia, told the CBC. "What he was telling us was Hezbollah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them, and that's a favorite trick by people who don't have representation in the U.N. They use the U.N. as shields knowing that they cannot be punished for it."

Hurkyl

Jul27-06, 06:45 PM

Wanting is a very strong term, and not the one I used, nor will.

Deliberate killing of civilians, and UN Observers because of the Israeli perceived need to and specifically in the context of trying to destroy Hezbollah is different than *wanting* to.

Are you trying to get an emotional reaction, Hurkyl?
No, I am not trying to get an emotional reaction.

Your last couple posts sounded like a thinly veiled accusation that Israelis have a desire to kill Lebanese civilians, and were jumping upon this opportunity to get away with it under the pretense of self defense.

However, it wasn't crystal clear, and I wanted you to come out and say it if that's what you meant.

But "want" was maybe too strong a word, since it still sounds like the you're saying the thing I thought you were saying.

Deliberate killing of civilians, and UN Observers because of the Israeli perceived need to

This sounds very much like you're saying that, for the Israelis, the point of this war is to kill civilians.

kyleb

Jul27-06, 07:26 PM

Just popped in to post this: Annan's Claims On Casualties May Unravel (http://www.nysun.com/article/36860)

That is curious:

The statement said the Security Council "is deeply shocked an distressed by the firing by the Israeli Defense Forces on a United Nations Observer post in southern Lebanon on 25 July, 2006, which caused the death of four U.N. military observers."

Israel has apologized and called the incident a mistake. U.N. officials said they asked Israel a dozen times to stop bombing near the post in the hours before it was destroyed.
...

Israel's U.N. ambassador, Dan Gillerman, called the statement "fair and balanced" and again criticized U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan for saying the shelling appeared deliberate.

"During war, mistakes and tragedies happen,"

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N27419417.htm

So if the email is right, the ambassador is wrong.

Office_Shredder

Jul27-06, 09:55 PM

So if the email is right, the ambassador is wrong.

How so? The striking of the UN observers would have been accidental

Anttech

Jul28-06, 02:12 AM

How so? The striking of the UN observers would have been accidental With laser guided missiles, after 10 radio calls to the Israel command post explaining where they are. The UN post has been there for years, it has the Blue UN Flag outside, it is well documented. If it was an accident then, I wonder how many undocumented accidence have been happening in Beriut!

Anttech

Jul28-06, 02:16 AM

Deliberate killing of civilians, and UN Observers because of the Israeli perceived need to Is a nice snippet of what I actually said:

Deliberate killing of civilians, and UN Observers because of the Israeli perceived need to and specifically in the context of trying to destroy Hezbollah is different than *wanting* to.

Ever heard of the term 'collateral damage' which the US likes to go on about as if it is acceptable, as long as its not US citizens.

Yonoz

Jul28-06, 02:49 AM

So if the email is right, the ambassador is wrong.What is he wrong about? Mistakes and tragedies don't happen during war?

Yonoz

Jul28-06, 02:55 AM

With laser guided missiles, after 10 radio calls to the Israel command post explaining where they are. The UN post has been there for years, it has the Blue UN Flag outside, it is well documented. If it was an accident then, I wonder how many undocumented accidence have been happening in Beriut!We all wonder that. It still does not mean it was deliberate, it's clear from the e-mails that the Israeli fire, which was as close as "2 metres" to the post "has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity". "Tactical necessity" apparently implies that the Hizbullah guerrilas were near enough to the UN post and apparently engaging in some activity that would necessitate Israeli fire, even in the eyes of those who were close enough to have been hit.

Yonoz

Jul28-06, 02:59 AM

Ever heard of the term 'collateral damage' which the US likes to go on about as if it is acceptable, as long as its not US citizens.So are you saying Israel should allow its own citizens to be killed simply because to remove the threat would cost Lebanese lives? Are our leaders to make a calculation of the projected deaths on either side? How many deaths can 12000 rockets cause?

Anttech

Jul28-06, 03:34 AM

We all wonder that. It still does not mean it was deliberate, it's clear from the e-mails that the Israeli fire, which was as close as "2 metres" to the post "has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity". "Tactical necessity" apparently implies that the Hizbullah guerrillas were near enough to the UN post and apparently engaging in some activity that would necessitate Israeli fire, even in the eyes of those who were close enough to have been hit.

Thats a contradiction, make your mind up. Either they didnt fire on the UN post or they did, tactical necessity is irrelevant. UN Observers are not acceptable 'collateral damage' under any circumstances, and I truly hope this isnt made a precedence! They are the eyes and ears of the world, and allow us (the rest of the world) to ensure you are playing by the rules. Its truly doesnt look good, what you did there.

So are you saying Israel should allow its own citizens to be killed simply because to remove the threat would cost Lebanese lives? Are our leaders to make a calculation of the projected deaths on either side? How many deaths can 12000 rockets cause?
You arent removing the threat, yet you keep asserting that. Anyway again, you are reading what you want. I am saying that you are punishing the whole of Lebanon to get at the few. Israel it seems, with all its experience at Counter terrorism doesnt have a clue about how to conduct its-self in this type of war.

The amount of deaths 12,000 rockets could cause is vast, yet you have had about 50 die. Your F16's probably have killed more in one raid.

Yonoz

Jul28-06, 03:54 AM

You like to read what you want, dont you?
You are Arabs with a different religion that others, but you are Arabs neither the less.If that's the way you view things, fine. Just make sure you apply the same standards to both sides. If you treat Hizbullah's terrorism as an axiom, you should do the same with Israel's response. If you think Israel is making a mistake because the fighting increases support for Hizbullah, be aware it's the same with Israeli public opinion.

You are using the fact that (disgusting as it is) hezbollah are using gurrilea warfair tactics against you, as the excuse behind the disproportional amount of Lebanese lifes that have been taken.Disproportionate to what exactly? Israeli casualties? We are not motivated by retribution. We measure the proportion according to the risk to our civilians. How many deaths can 12000 rockets cause?

I was being Ironic! Its part of the problem you know, the lopsided generosity that has been shown to Israel as oppose to any other ME country. People arent stupid, they see this with there own eyes. Look at Palestine, its literally, inside Israel yet it is so poor.Please, you don't think the west's been generous to other ME countries? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, UAE - I'm sure Schrodinger's Dog can tell you about all his country's friends, including British Aerospace management's royal treatment of the Saudi Prince, how easy it is to break the law when you're a major exporter. You see, the American moguls haven't invented anything, they're just really good at it. It's only now that there are no European superpowers that you look down on these practices.

Allow me to reciprocate by questioning your world's morals. IMO the west's newfound ideals are simply a fresh disguise for your own agendas. No one really cares about the Palestinians, the only time they got your attention was when they hijacked planes. No one tried to appease the Arab world before the oil embargo - sh*t, the noble "Brits" and the oh-so-diplomatic French tried to take the Suez Canal by force only 50 years ago (it was the Americans that stopped it - how do you explain that?). Europe was suckling on Arab resources like it did with Africa before. This new love affair is nothing more than foreign policy, meant to ensure a successful future for your nations. You did not respect the Arabs until they forced you to, just as you do not respect the Tibetans and Kurds today. Are you really aware of what's happening at every corner of this globe? Or are you being spoonfed propaganda? Why is there no attention given to Chinese human organ trafficking? Russian crimes in Chechnya? You complain about the Palestinians being poor - how about an entire continent that Europe drained dry last century? It's different today though, right?
One form of colonialism replaces another. At least cowboy diplomacy is straight forward. Now that they're the only superpower you look down at the Americans, thinking yourselves to be so righteous - when in fact it's nothing more than a modern manifestation of that well-repressed but strongly primal sense of nationalism.

Yonoz

Jul28-06, 04:18 AM

Thats a contradiction, make your mind up. Either they didnt fire on the UN post or they did, tactical necessity is irrelevant.I don't see the contradiction there. The IDF targetted the Hizbullah guerrilas that "swarmed" the post.
UN Observers are not acceptable 'collateral damage' under any circumstances, and I truly hope this isnt made a precedence!Are Israeli civilians acceptable 'collateral damage'? Because it seems perfectly acceptable to you that Israel stop defending them.
They are the eyes and ears of the world, and allow us (the rest of the world) to ensure you are playing by the rules.Well it's a shame you didn't ensure the Lebanese are.
Its truly doesnt look good, what you did there.We're not here to put on a show for you. The UN observer himself wrote the fire was for "tactical necessity".

You arent removing the threat, yet you keep asserting that.I'm sorry, I didn't know you had the schedule. Got a better way of removing that threat?
Anyway again, you are reading what you want. I am saying that you are punishing the whole of Lebanon to get at the few.I think I know better than you what is motivating us right now, and it's not a need for punishment.
Israel it seems, with all its experience at Counter terrorism doesnt have a clue about how to conduct its-self in this type of war.Please enlighten us. I didn't know your country was faced with the exact same threats.

The amount of deaths 12,000 rockets could cause is vast, yet you have had about 50 die.I'm sorry we have such a low death count, would you like more of us to die? Defence is quite useless when done retroactively.
Your F16's probably have killed more in one raid.It's quite clear that you view us with prejudice. Try looking at facts, not assumptions.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul28-06, 04:24 AM

If that's the way you view things, fine. Just make sure you apply the same standards to both sides. If you treat Hizbullah's terrorism as an axiom, you should do the same with Israel's response. If you think Israel is making a mistake because the fighting increases support for Hizbullah, be aware it's the same with Israeli public opinion.

Disproportionate to what exactly? Israeli casualties? We are not motivated by retribution. We measure the proportion according to the risk to our civilians. How many deaths can 12000 rockets cause?

Please, you don't think the west's been generous to other ME countries? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, UAE - I'm sure Schrodinger's Dog can tell you about all his country's friends, including British Aerospace management's royal treatment of the Saudi Prince, how easy it is to break the law when you're a major exporter. You see, the American moguls haven't invented anything, they're just really good at it. It's only now that there are no European superpowers that you look down on these practices.

Allow me to reciprocate by questioning your world's morals. IMO the west's newfound ideals are simply a fresh disguise for your own agendas. No one really cares about the Palestinians, the only time they got your attention was when they hijacked planes. No one tried to appease the Arab world before the oil embargo - sh*t, the noble "Brits" and the oh-so-diplomatic French tried to take the Suez Canal by force only 50 years ago (it was the Americans that stopped it - how do you explain that?). Europe was suckling on Arab resources like it did with Africa before. This new love affair is nothing more than foreign policy, meant to ensure a successful future for your nations. You did not respect the Arabs until they forced you to, just as you do not respect the Tibetans and Kurds today. Are you really aware of what's happening at every corner of this globe? Or are you being spoonfed propaganda? Why is there no attention given to Chinese human organ trafficking? Russian crimes in Chechnya? You complain about the Palestinians being poor - how about an entire continent that Europe drained dry last century? It's different today though, right?
One form of colonialism replaces another. At least cowboy diplomacy is straight forward. Now that they're the only superpower you look down at the Americans, thinking yourselves to be so righteous - when in fact it's nothing more than a modern manifestation of that well-repressed but strongly primal sense of nationalism.

Yes the worlds a mess, doesn't mean you have to contribute to it, or that your given cart blanche to, we're all at fault but that doesn't mean we can't put pressure on a race to stop what we percieve as evil. Morality is not a bank, you can't look at someone elses account in order to justify your own immorality, it doesn't work that way. This is not a childish situation of recirimination excused by the evils of others, he started it is not a valid argument, your argument is a straw man I'm afraid.

You should try looking up the Lavon affair since you mentioned the Suez crisis, an example of attempted assisination of civillians by Mossad in order to stall a peace process, your right of course, Israelis dont't target civillians deliberately,they leave it up to Zionist terrorists such as Irgun or intelligence, although I've seen precious little sign of intelligence in this war :biggrin:

The English arms trade and greed for cash to fuel wars is a shamefull embarrasesement to the UK and one I will not excuse, it frankly disgusts me, You can Kaching in on death by supplying war zones with cash, that's morally repugnant whether it be US, UK or Russian arms the dissidents are wielding. MP's ahave lost jobs over illicit arms deals, frankly they should lose jobs over the legal ones in most cases as well.

Anttech

Jul28-06, 04:52 AM

Ok Yonzo, if you want I will look at Israel with the same respect as I look at hezbollah. IE NONE this is absolutely it seems what you want. The world expects more from your 'supposed' civilised country, but you dont and cant produce. So I will put you in the same respect category as Hezbollah. Are you happy now? Or would you prefer we criticize you, because we expect you to have a higher standard, with respect to human rights, than a terrorist organisation?

I am amazed at this statement:

I don't see the contradiction there. The IDF targetted the Hizbullah guerrilas that "swarmed" the post.

So you deliberately targeted the post which you knew had UN OBSERVERS inside? Perhaps answer the question this time, rather than trying to divert to something else. Do you believe that the UN Observers are acceptable collateral damage?

edit:

Would you care to explain how you target a moving 'swam' with laser guided missiles? hmmmm Usually Laser guided missiles are used to 'take out' stationary objects.

Yonoz

Jul28-06, 05:47 AM

Ok Yonzo, if you want I will look at Israel with the same respect as I look at hezbollah. IE NONE this is absolutely it seems what you want.Respect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect)is an attitude of acknowledging the feelings and interests of another party in a relationship, and of treating as consequential for the self the helping or harming of the other. Though most commonly referring to interpersonal relationships, it can be used between animals, groups and institutions including countries. Respect does not necessarily imply deference, but a respectful attitude rules out unconsidered selfish behaviour. The concept of respect predates, and does not rely on, the existence of the concept of rights.

Respect is sometimes loosely used as a synonym for politeness or manners, though these are behaviours, whereas respect is an attitude. Intercultural differences in behaviours, self-perception and outward appearance may result in the unintentional appearance of disrespect.

Many movements have at different times claimed respect as the core element, including raver-culture, Islam and the United States Marine Corps.You respect Hizbullah. You excuse their behaviour as a rule of nature. You expect Israel to continually be attacked only to be neutered by the world when it tries to defend itself:
The world expects more from your 'supposed' civilised country, but you dont and cant produce. So I will put you in the same respect category as Hezbollah. Are you happy now? Or would you prefer we criticize you, because we expect you to have a higher standard, with respect to human rights, than a terrorist organisation?Oh but we do have a higher standard. We sanctify life, while they sanctify death. When we attack, we do so to prevent harm - when they attack, they mean to inflict it. We drop leaflets and send out radio broadcasts and recorded phone messages. They send out threats. Having read the definition for respect, I hope you realise this doesn't mean we're any more respected than they are. Quite the opposite. Just like the UN is disrespected by almost everyone.
I am amazed at this statement:
I don't see the contradiction there. The IDF targetted the Hizbullah guerrilas that "swarmed" the post.
So you deliberately targeted the post which you knew had UN OBSERVERS inside?I don't see how that can be misinterpreted like that. Read the sentence - slowly this time, you missed a few words in the middle there. The IDF targeted the **Hizbullah guerillas** that swarmed the post.
Perhaps answer the question this time, rather than trying to divert to something else. Do you believe that the UN Observers are acceptable collateral damage?It depends on the threat. In some cases - yes. First, they are soldiers. Unlike civilians, they have chosen this profession and volunteered for their service. So obviously if a civilian can be an acceptable collateral damage, so can UN observers. Just like I would accept that if I participate in a battle, the enemy will try to kill me. It's not that the enemy soldier's driven by malice, he's a soldier just like I'd be and we'd be in a clear battle, and I would accept the fact that he would try to kill me. I do not accept that civilians are targetted for the purpose of killing them alone. I do not accept that guerillas hide among civilians and UN posts.
Second, Israel is not directly obligated to the peacekeepers. It is, however, directly and solely obligated to its citizens. The UN is obligated to its observers, and Israel is obligated to the UN, but not at the price of its own citizens. If I had to chose between a UN observer and an Israeli civilian, I would definitely accept such collateral damage. I know you'll be quick to judge me now, just think it over and ask yourself if any other country would not fire at those attacking its civilians, even if they're doing so from a UN post.
Now perhaps you can answer my question - what would you call the Israelis that will die from Hizbullah rockets if Israel agreed to a ceasefire? Is that not collateral damage? Are you not expecting Israel to accept it?

Yonoz

Jul28-06, 05:57 AM

A funny caricature in the newspaper today. The officer's saying "That can't be. Only we have anxiety victims". Just thought you should see there's still a "left" here.

Yonoz

Jul28-06, 06:10 AM

Hizbullah Use of Civilians as Shields - 26 July 2006 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaO-3hXeIEs)

Anttech

Jul28-06, 06:19 AM

You respect Hizbullah. You excuse their behaviour as a rule of nature. You expect Israel to continually be attacked only to be neutered by the world when it tries to defend itself:
k Yonzo, if you want I will look at Israel with the same respect as I look at hezbollah. IE NONE

Once again, you are attempting to project what you like onto me, and (purposefully?) are trying to twist what I say. if this continues I will not continue debating you!

Oh but we do have a higher standard. We sanctify life, while they sanctify death. When we attack, we do so to prevent harm - when they attack, they mean to inflict it. We drop leaflets and send out radio broadcasts and recorded phone messages. They send out threats. Having read the definition for respect, I hope you realise this doesn't mean we're any more respected than they are. Quite the opposite. Just like the UN is disrespected by almost everyone. Oxymoron: And you are TRYING to harm Hezbollah, and the infrastructure of Lebanon.
In military science, an attack is the aggressive attempt to conquer enemy territory, installations, personnel, or equipment or to deny the enemy the use of territory, installations, personnel, or equipment, for example by destroying the equipment. A defending force may defend themselves, surrender, or launch a counter-attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack
The UN is respected, and is acknowledge by all leaders of the free world as a vehicle for allowing countries to voice grievances, and for government to multilaterally decide and act on problems. I'll admit it isnt perfect, But it is better than No UN.

Now perhaps you can answer my question - what would you call the Israelis that will die from Hizbullah rockets if Israel agreed to a ceasefire? Is that not collateral damage? Are you not expecting Israel to accept it?Victims of a terrorist attack, no but I am expecting I will say this the last time more thought, and more respect for lebaonese life (and UN life). I am expecting you to behave like a civilised country, not like a raging bull.
I don't see how that can be misinterpreted like that. Read the sentence - slowly this time, you missed a few words in the middle there. The IDF targeted the **Hizbullah guerillas** that swarmed the post.Man, this is trying. You accept that Israel knew there were UN observers inside the post that was *supposedly* swarmed by Hezbollah, yet you still fired on them. This action brings the people who did this down to the same level as the hezbullah terrorists, who fire indescrimently on Israeli targets, not caring for the consequences.
It depends on the threat. In some cases - yes. First, they are soldiers. Unlike civilians, they have chosen this profession and volunteered for their service.Well using your logic, you choose to move to Israel, you have the choice to leave. (That was an example, I dont actually believe this, I said this to show what your statements look like) The UN PEACEKEEPERS were there UNARMED, they function similar to the press.

Anttech

Jul28-06, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by Anttech
Anyway again, you are reading what you want. I am saying that you are punishing the whole of Lebanon to get at the few.
I think I know better than you what is motivating us right now, and it's not a need for punishment.
I never mentioned motivation :confused: I said it factually, you know like what you are actually doing.

750,000 people now displaced
425 people killed

Yonoz

Jul28-06, 06:27 AM

OxymoronPlease explain.

Victims of a terrorist attack, no but I am expecting I will say this the last time more thought, and more respect for lebaonese life (and UN life). I am expecting you to behave like a civilised country, not like a raging bull.And what would a civilized country do?
Man, this is trying.Yes it is, do you want to drop it?
You accept that Israel knew there were UN observers inside the post that was *supposedly* swarmed by Hezbollah, yet you still fired on them. This action brings the people who did this down to the same level as the hezbullah terrorists, who fire indescrimently on Israeli targets, not caring for the consequences.No, because the fire was meant to kill the Hizbullah guerillas, and was not meant to kill the UN personnel. Hizbullah launches rockets with the full intent of killing innocent people.

Well using your logic, you choose to move to Israel, you have the choice to leave. (That was an example, I dont actually believe this, I said this to show what your statements look like) The UN PEACEKEEPERS were there UNARMED, they function similar to the press.Well I would take the killing of an Israeli inside Israel with a little less disgust than I would the killing of an Israeli who fled Israel. It's the lesser of two evils - the killing of the UN volunteer and soldier by profession or the killing of the innocent civilian.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul28-06, 06:33 AM

Please explain.

Oxymoron is a contradiction in terms such as a deafening silence or military intelligence and friendly fire.:smile:

Anttech

Jul28-06, 06:36 AM

The killing of an observer, or the press, can be construed in many different ways. When the dust settles I hope we will find out why this act actually happened. If the killing of the UN observers was so that nobody could see what was going to happen, ie to kill the witnesses, then it is indeed very bad. I respect all life, I dont respect Israeli life more than I do Chinese or Canadian or Palisten.

No, because the fire was meant to kill the Hizbullah guerillas, and was not meant to kill the UN personnel. Hizbullah launches rocket with the full intent of killing innocent people.But it did kill the UN observers. Are the Israeli army that stupid, that they think if you bomb a Hezbollah terrorist that is standing 2 meters away from a UN post, that the people in the UN post wont harmed? I dont think so. So it was intentional, anyway i hope this goes to the human rights courts.

Yes it is, do you want to drop it?
Ok lets drop that, and wait for the International Courts deal with your soldiers.

Yonoz

Jul28-06, 06:39 AM

I never mentioned motivation :confused: I said it factually, you know like what you are actually doing.

750,000 people now displaced
425 people killedDid Israel also "punish" its own civilians? You know: the ones who died or were injured, the ones who are in shelters for over two weeks, the ones who fled the north? It's a national crisis, caring for the displaced families. Hotels in the south are filled to an unprecedented state. The Jewish agency has organised summer camps for the children all over the country, while their parents are in the shelter in the north. We are also "punished" here, and we have no joy in watching the Lebanese suffer. But Hizbullah must not be allowed to threaten Israel like that.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul28-06, 06:51 AM

Yeah yeah yeah,what you did isn't an eye for an eye, it's an eye for an arm and a leg. That's where the issue lies, not should Israel have the right to defend itself, should it have the right to beat someone and all the innocent bystanders who viewed the event into a bloody pulp and leave them in intensive care when that person merely slapped them. It's not hard to comprehend why this is a series of humanitarian laws infringements. Or why the only people defending this are those carrying out the attacks or those on that side, and the US atm, although God knows why, it's pretty apaulling, in my and just about everyone I knows opinion. Not that anecdotal evidence means jack, so basically try looking at the world news, there's condemnation all over the shop. Need to repeat what people have already said a dozen times on the off chance you'll understand at least to some tiny extent what the ussue with your campaign is. 2 for 378, 189 innocent lives for 1 non innocent life. That should be nice and clear now. Anyway I suggested we drop it ages ago, it's not like Yonoz understands the moral issues at hand or if he does he's having a hard time dealing with it rationally, which is understandable, it's like being involved in a fight and then trying to rationalise how many people you stomped afterwards to the police, your the injured party not them.:tongue2:

Anttech

Jul28-06, 07:01 AM

yes,

I will second that. You dont have to believe me. But Every single person I have spoke to (including my ex-girlfriend who is a Jew) has condemn the attacks on Lebanon as brutal and totally over the top.

You are not the only country in the world who lives under terrorism, and nor will you be the last. However you do not have the right to smash Lebanon to the ground in reaction to 20 or so citizens, who have been killed! The IRA killed many more than this in the UK, yet (crazy as it may sound) the UK government didnt drop bombs all over Dublin, because we knew that the IRA was not the Irish government, nor the Irish people.

Yonoz

Jul28-06, 09:52 AM

I will second that. You dont have to believe me. But Every single person I have spoke to (including my ex-girlfriend who is a Jew) has condemn the attacks on Lebanon as brutal and totally over the top.Even common misperceptions are still, nonetheless, misperceptions. The Jenin Syndrome (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/677332/posts) lives on.

You are not the only country in the world who lives under terrorism, and nor will you be the last. However you do not have the right to smash Lebanon to the ground in reaction to 20 or so citizens, who have been killed!You're using those distorting superlatives again. Lebanon is not being "smashed to the ground". We have every right to defend ourselves from an ongoing attack.
The IRA killed many more than this in the UK, yet (crazy as it may sound) the UK government didnt drop bombs all over Dublin, because we knew that the IRA was not the Irish government, nor the Irish people.That's because the IRA were not sitting in Ireland raining rockets on Britain. If that were the case I guarantee you they would have hit them much harder.

Anttech

Jul28-06, 10:03 AM

That's because the IRA were not sitting in Ireland raining rockets on Britain. If that were the case I guarantee you they would have hit them much harder. Nah, they were just planting bombs in the London Underground, Outside Downing Street, in most major cities. They were ambushing UK Soliders in N.Ireland the list is long. As I said before 3000 people died in the troubles.

The reason the UK didnt fly f16 into Dublin, is because they understand the art of counter-terrorism. Hearts and Minds, create a political Avenue, allow for greivances to be heard, and acted on.

Yonoz

Jul28-06, 10:12 AM

Nah, they were just planting bombs in the London Underground, Outside Downing Street, in most major cities. They were ambushing UK Soliders in N.Ireland the list is long. As I said before 3000 people died in the troubles.You fail to see the point. There weren't any rockets launched from Ireland, so there's no reason to drop bombs there, is there? Do you think we're just dropping bombs wherever we feel like?

The reason the UK didnt fly f16 into Dublin, is because they understand the art of counter-terrorism. Hearts and Minds, create a political Avenue, allow for greivances to be heard, and acted on.Why would the want to fly an F16 there in the first place?

Yonoz

Jul28-06, 10:13 AM

BTW last time I checked Northern Ireland was still part of the UK.

Anttech

Jul28-06, 10:17 AM

BTW last time I checked Northern Ireland was still part of the UK. Yes it is part of the UK, what is your point? The IRA were attacking the UK Soldiers in N.I.

The point is the British intelligence knew where they were, they were killing British civilians yet we didnt go in with bombs blowing up where we thought they lived. The delivery system of death is totally Irrelevant.

Do you believe that Israel life's are more important that British lifes?

Yonoz

Jul28-06, 10:34 AM

Yes it is part of the UK, what is your point? The IRA were attacking the UK Soldiers in N.I.That's funny because I figured if you're comparing the two conflicts then Britain must have pulled out of Northern Ireland.

The point is the British intelligence knew where they were, they were killing British civilians yet we didnt go in with bombs blowing up where we thought they lived. The delivery system of death is totally Irrelevant.Irrelevant? What is Israel attacking in Lebanon, trucks carrying plumbing supplies?

Do you believe that Israel life's are more important that British lifes?I wonder what do you think the British government would do if it pulled out of Northern Ireland, the Irish government allowed the IRA to arm itself to the teeth with over 12000 rockets and then one day just started firing them at Manchester and Liverpool, creating desertion and days reminiscent of the battle of Britain.
Lucky for them, they had freedom for their security forces since they were on UK soil and the IRA never had ground-ground rockets, let alone 12000. Those are the really big differences.

Curious6

Jul28-06, 10:52 AM

Anttech, it's not hard to see your analogy to the IRA and the UK is flawed.

Gokul43201

Jul28-06, 10:56 AM

Anttech, it's not hard to see your analogy to the IRA and the UK is flawed.Curious6, it is good practice to support an assertion like that with an argument. What you've just done is a hit and run.

Curious6

Jul28-06, 11:05 AM

Gokul43201, it's not a 'hit and run'. I was limiting myself to giving my opinion about the IRA/UK analogy being debated - for me, it's quite clear from the discussion between Anntech and Yonoz that the comparison is not an accurate one.

kyleb

Jul28-06, 11:12 AM

Yonoz simply overlooked where Anntech was drawing his comparison; the IRA did arm itself to the teeth because the British government had their forces on Irish soil, much the same as a the Muslim extremist minority does against Israel today.

daveb

Jul28-06, 11:17 AM

This has turned into an "I'm right" - "No, I'm right" argument. Yonoz will never believe that Israel is overreacting and Anttech will never believe that Israel is just defending itself. Can we move on please?

kyleb

Jul28-06, 11:36 AM

Yes, we should talk about Israel's continuing control and expansion over the past four decades onto land beyond the Green Line. How would like to have been born into the other side of that?

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul28-06, 01:18 PM

BTW last time I checked Northern Ireland was still part of the UK.

That's because the majority of it's population are Loyalists(pro UK government) If they want devolution they have but to vote for it, but with little support for it in the country it is unlikely in my lifetime to become a reality. To the IRA's credit though they still maintain a hope of union with Ireland by purely political means. When the last IRA member shot a loylaist in 2005 they offered to have him shot as recompense, that's a bold statement of solidarity behind a peace cause, the familly of the victim refused though, and rightly so, shows real human decency in an ability to forgive and forget on both sides. Just FYI, the reason why the UK maintains control is a democratic one.

That's because the IRA were not sitting in Ireland raining rockets on Britain. If that were the case I guarantee you they would have hit them much harder.

The anlogoy is apt because the IRA bombed many civillian centres in the UK, the 600 dead civillians you see are mostly perpetrated against England on English soil.One of the worst of which was the Manchester bombing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/15/newsid_2527000/2527009.stm

1996: Huge explosion rocks central Manchester
A massive bomb has devastated a busy shopping area in central Manchester.

Two hundred people were injured in the attack, mostly by flying glass, and seven are said to be in a serious condition. Police believe the IRA planted the device.

The bomb exploded at about 1120 BST on Corporation Street outside the Arndale shopping centre.

It is the seventh attack by the Irish Republican group since it broke its ceasefire in February and is the second largest on the British mainland.

A local television station received a telephone warning at 1000 BST - just as the city centre was filling up with Saturday shoppers.

The caller used a recognised IRA codeword.

One hour and 20 minutes after the warning, police were still clearing hundreds of people from a huge area of central Manchester.

Army bomb disposal experts were using a remote-controlled device to examine a suspect van parked outside Marks & Spencer when it blew up in an uncontrolled explosion.

This is not an atypical situation of 30 years of terrorists explosions around the UK.

Bystander

Jul28-06, 01:30 PM

Thats a contradiction, make your mind up. Either they didnt fire on the UN post or they did, tactical necessity is irrelevant.

"Tactical necessities" are the only "relevant" factors in warfare.

UN Observers are not acceptable 'collateral damage' under any circumstances, (snip)

You referee a hockey game you're going to get hit with the puck. You take a "nitwitness news team" to the front, you're gonna get hurt. You man a UN outpost in the middle of a war zone, you abandon it when the shooting starts, because the psychopaths are going to be using you for cover if you don't, and that's going to draw the other side's fire.

kyleb

Jul28-06, 01:39 PM

So either or the report of the emails is right in suggesting it was a tactical necessity, or the Israeli ambassador is right in saying it was a mistake.

Bystander

Jul28-06, 01:59 PM

So either or the report of the emails is right in suggesting it was a tactical necessity, or the Israeli ambassador is right in saying it was a mistake.

What's the "or" sh*t? It's a "tactical necessity" that the Israelis deliberately target the psychopaths; it's an accident, unfortunate side effect, mistake (given lousy language translations) that the UN observers incurred casualties.

Believe it or not, this is the kind of thing that happens when some raving maniac starts a war. B*tch out the raving maniac for being so incredibly stupid in the first place, b*tch out the nincompoops who gave the raving maniac sanctuary, b*tch out the people who bankroll the raving maniac, but don't go griping to the people trying to clean up the mess.

Office_Shredder

Jul28-06, 02:11 PM

kyleb

Jul28-06, 02:15 PM

I mean where Israel has been controlling and expanding beyond the Green Line for nearly forty years.

kyleb

Jul28-06, 02:17 PM

What's the "or" sh*t? It's a "tactical necessity" that the Israelis deliberately target the psychopaths; it's an accident, unfortunate side effect, mistake (given lousy language translations) that the UN observers incurred casualties.
Either Israeli did deliberately targeted the location, or they made a mistake. It is one or the other.

Bystander

Jul28-06, 02:33 PM

Either Israeli did deliberately targeted the location, or they made a mistake. It is one or the other.

There is NO "excluded middle." This is exactly how Arabs and M(o,u)sl(e,i)ms have lost every war they started in the 20th century, and will lose every war they start in the 21st --- no logic skills.

Yonoz

Jul28-06, 02:37 PM

I mean where Israel has been controlling and expanding beyond the Green Line for nearly forty years.I was referring to the fact that the British could deal with the IRA on British soil. The IDF was not in Lebanon for 6 years now, hence the dissonance between the two cases, making the example void.

MeJennifer

Jul28-06, 02:39 PM

There is NO "excluded middle." This is exactly how Arabs and M(o,u)sl(e,i)ms have lost every war they started in the 20th century, and will lose every war they start in the 21st --- no logic skills.
That is just racism, plain and simple.

Bystander

Jul28-06, 02:54 PM

That is just racism, plain and simple.

No. It's history. Failure to examine the possible consequences of actions before taking them has been a characteristic of SW Asian cultures for quite some time --- it's been particularly pronounced through the 20th century, and there's no indication that it's going to change.

kyleb

Jul28-06, 02:56 PM

I was referring to the fact that the British could deal with the IRA on British soil. The IDF was not in Lebanon for 6 years now, hence the dissonance between the two cases, making the example void.
You can find dissidence between any two examples, but that is no excuse to overlook the similarities. Regardless, your statement begs the question; how much land should Israel control?

kyleb

Jul28-06, 03:09 PM

No. It's history. Failure to examine the possible consequences of actions before taking them has been a characteristic of SW Asian cultures for quite some time --- it's been particularly pronounced through the 20th century, and there's no indication that it's going to change.
Western culture has that problem as well, if it didn't we would have seen nothing but flowers in the street in Iraq. But laying such lack of foresight on a whole culture is stereotyping, and Israel's continuing occupation and expiation beyond the Green Line motivates Muslims to conform to the stereotype which you push on them.

Gokul43201

Jul28-06, 03:33 PM

Israel pulls out of Gaza and suffered retaliation from militants there. Israel pulls out of Lebanon, and gets hit by Hizbullah. But if Israel takes down the settlements in the West Bank, everything will get better?

Yes, the Israeli settlements in the WB are illegal and they should be taken down. But to expect a drastic turn for the better following such a move is illogical. The terrorist groups (funded by Iran and Syria) are not arguing that Israel is occupying their land as much as they are arguing that Israel simply exists.

kyleb

Jul28-06, 04:12 PM

loseyourname

Jul28-06, 04:26 PM

Curious6, it is good practice to support an assertion like that with an argument. What you've just done is a hit and run.

Well, I'll provide an argument for him. Hezbollah's initial purpose was to end the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Similarly, the IRA wanted the UK to cede Northern Ireland back to the rest of Ireland. Their methods were similar in that both used guerilla/terrorist tactics. The UK did not bomb Ireland and Israel did not bomb Lebanon during either of these periods of resistance.

The analogy breaks, however, when we consider what happened post resolution. Although Northern Ireland is still part of the UK, it is so by its own choice and hostilities seem to have ceased. Israel actually one-upped the UK and withdrew from southern Lebanon. However, at this point, there was no peace. Hezbollah continued on despite the fact that its intended aim had been accomplished, and has moved beyond the guerilla tactics to a flat-out assault with surface-to-surface missiles aimed at Israeli targets. As Yonoz pointed out about a hundred times, if, at this point, instead of easing off, the IRA had acquired surface-to-surface missiles and was aiming and firing these at cities within the British mainland, would the UK government continue its cease-fire? Or would it seek to destroy those outposts armed with surface-to-surface missiles by any means necessary before they could destroy all of the major industrial cities along the northwestern coast of Britain?

I'm not necessarily taking a side here, trying to say that the initial Israeli response to the kidnapping was justifiable, as I honestly have not been following this conflict and have no idea what the full reasons are behind each action taken by both parties. I'm only pointing out the flaw in the analogy, since there seem to be so many people vociferously defending the position. It's not as if this analogy needs to hold in order for there to be creedence lent to the claim that what Israel is doing is inappropriate, anyway.

It's worth noting that Gokul is right in his last post as well. It's a lot easier to negotiate with interests that only want you to give over the northern tip of an island. It's a lot harder when they want the complete destruction of your entire nation and the giving up of all of its land. These organizations do not seem to be the least bit interested in peaceful cohabitation.

Edit: Then again, I don't want to make a conflation error and equate the most extreme elements of radical Islamic terrorist groups with the concensus wishes of most regional Arabs. Assuming they are reasonable human beings like any ordinary person tends to be, I'm sure the average Palestinian or Lebanese would be more than happy with peaceful cohabitation. Still, they keep electing extremists that make it clear Israel has no right to exist at all.

Yonoz

Jul28-06, 05:14 PM

Taking the settlements down and clearing out to completely behind the Green Line would resolve the most flagrant causes for grievance, and those who contest Israel existence will die off in time.Get real.
We can't changes those with their minds set to take the land by force on either side, but we can stop supporting such people and work to resolve the conditions which promote their causes.Here's one more thing for you to consider then: if the Israeli public agrees to one withdrawal after another, and all that insures us is a place at the receiving end of daily rocket attacks from those very territories, you will definitely not see a peaceful end to this conflict for a while. That's not a threat, that's a reality check from a left wing Israeli.

kyleb

Jul28-06, 06:03 PM

So tell me, really; how much land should Israel control?

Office_Shredder

Jul28-06, 06:40 PM

So tell me, really; how much land should Israel control?

Why don't you tell us? How much land does Israel really need to give away before the attacks stop? And stop giving us this crap about "Well, they've withdrawn from all but one spot, and that's why the attacks have quadrupled in intensity"

clj4

Jul28-06, 06:41 PM

You dont negotiate with terrorists is a slogan, just like Russ put earlier "Give peace a chance" is. Its something Bushco like to say all the time, as a premesis to do whatever they like. The UK Goverment negotiated with Terrorists in Ireland many times, and ohhh look there is now peace! Regardsless Hezbollah needs it sting taken away, I am all for that. But Israel is going way beyond a terrorist opp Like Putin said, it is now completely destroying Lebanon. A Free Deomcratic mixed race country.

Let me restate : you don't negociate with islamic terrorists.

turbo

Jul28-06, 07:06 PM

OK, do you negotioate with Isaeli terrorists? The ones that come and bulldoze your little home into the dirt? Israel (with US help) dominates the region, and they are making the South Africans look like pikers. The Zionists are ruining any hope for regional stability in the Middle East.

Anttech

Jul28-06, 08:56 PM

What's the "or" sh*t? It's a "tactical necessity" that the Israelis deliberately target the psychopaths; it's an accident, unfortunate side effect, mistake (given lousy language translations) that the UN observers incurred casualties.

Believe it or not, this is the kind of thing that happens when some raving maniac starts a war. B*tch out the raving maniac for being so incredibly stupid in the first place, b*tch out the nincompoops who gave the raving maniac sanctuary, b*tch out the people who bankroll the raving maniac, but don't go griping to the people trying to clean up the mess.
hahahahahaha :)

Ohh wait you werent refering to yourself. Please stop slandering

Bystander

Jul28-06, 09:08 PM

"Slander?" Nasrallah, the gutless, hide out in Syria, raving maniac? Stupid? The people who let a gutless, raving maniac do their thinking for them?

They wake up and staple him and his ilk to anthills, then we'll talk about a future for the Arab and Islamic worlds.

Anttech

Jul28-06, 09:11 PM

Are you going to have a intelectual debate? I know its hard but really, try at least to debate about the wrongs and right...

Bystander

Jul28-06, 09:56 PM

"Right" and "wrong" are emotional and philosophical claptrap, not intellectual discussion. "The Is" of the situation is that the Arab world has picked enough fights with the Israelis to know they get their butts kicked every time out; "the other is" of the situation is that the Arab world prefers listening to raving maniacs and paying enormous material, social, and political costs rather than stapling them to anthills.

kyleb

Jul28-06, 11:42 PM

Why don't you tell us? How much land does Israel really need to give away before the attacks stop? And stop giving us this crap about "Well, they've withdrawn from all but one spot, and that's why the attacks have quadrupled in intensity"
This isn't a fairy tale so the attacks won't magically disappear regardless of what land Israel holds. Now with that in mind, my question goes again to those defending Israel's continuing occupation and expansion into Palestine over the past four decades; how much land should Israel control?

Bystander

Jul29-06, 02:16 AM

Everything the Palestinians and other Arab states give them as "spoils of war." If they want to give some of it back (hectare per Hamas or Hezbollah hoodlum hanged from a lamppost, or 10 hectares per diseased holy man staked out on an anthill), make it a win-win situation for the Palestinian "on the street" --- let him get rid of the punks who've been shaking him down for the past sixty years plus gaining lebensraum.

clj4

Jul29-06, 06:42 AM

Hans de Vries

Jul29-06, 08:39 AM

Classical islamic apologist stance.

Since you're generalizing Islam here....

The Hezbollah Shiites are closer to Christianity as the Israeli Jews
since they base their faith partly on Jesus Christ:

http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Why_Dont_Jews_Believe_In_Jesus$.asp

http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1384/10/03/index-e.htm#b1

The real message is of course that Israel is not simply a small religious
island in a large hostile Arabic sea. There is a lot of religious diversity in
Israel’s neighborhood. It’s not religion which inhibits a peaceful
coexistence. It’s politics.

Regards, Hans

kyleb

Jul29-06, 09:58 AM

clj4

Jul29-06, 10:12 AM

Since you're generalizing Islam here....

The Hezbollah Shiites are closer to Christianity as the Israeli Jews
since they base their faith partly on Jesus Christ:

http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Why_Dont_Jews_Believe_In_Jesus$.asp

http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1384/10/03/index-e.htm#b1

The real message is of course that Israel is not simply a small religious
island in a large hostile Arabic sea. There is a lot of religious diversity in
Israel’s neighborhood. It’s not religion which inhibits a peaceful
coexistence. It’s politics.

Regards, Hans

I think that you should look up what an islamic apologist is.

kyleb

Jul29-06, 10:53 AM

Do you know that there is quite a diversity in Israel's own Jewish population as well, many being non-religious but rather cultrally Jewish?:

http://www.avi-chai.org/Static/Binaries/Publications/EnglishGuttman_0.pdf

And I haven't been able to locate statistics, but there are non-religious Palestinians as well. Beyond that, there are also Jewish communities who contenue to oppose Israel while living in Palestine, such as the Edah Haredit mentioned here:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1145961235084

The 'Us vs Them' here is much more complicated than many people care to realize.

Yonoz

Jul29-06, 11:41 AM

I've been called up.
Hope this is the last war.
Be back soon.

kyleb

Jul29-06, 12:08 PM

I don't see anything to inspire hope that this will be the last war, but I hope to see you back soon and unscratched.

Hans de Vries

Jul29-06, 12:21 PM

Good luck, take care and come back soon.

Bystander

Jul29-06, 01:46 PM

So you think Israel should occupy and expand wherever and whenever want?

Not even close --- there is a real language barrier here --- I'll restate it more clearly --- "When the 'sh*t for brains' militant Arabs and Moslems start a fight and the Israelis finish it, as has been customary, the Israelis are perfectly entitled to do whatever they wish with captured territory as spoils of war."

What that means, or, "So what I think," is that if the "sh*t for brains" militants don't start wars, they won't be losing territory, or, if the Arab "common man" wakes up and takes control of his life, and lynches or locks up the "sh*t for brains" militants, he keeps his land, his money, and his life.

Klar?

clj4

Jul29-06, 02:03 PM

Not even close --- there is a real language barrier here --- I'll restate it more clearly --- "When the 'sh*t for brains' militant Arabs and Moslems start a fight and the Israelis finish it, as has been customary, the Israelis are perfectly entitled to do whatever they wish with captured territory as spoils of war."

What that means, or, "So what I think," is that if the "sh*t for brains" militants don't start wars, they won't be losing territory, or, if the Arab "common man" wakes up and takes control of his life, and lynches or locks up the "sh*t for brains" militants, he keeps his land, his money, and his life.

Klar?

Well put. The sh*t for brains started all the wars in the hope of "wiping out" the newly created state and lost all of these wars.
After loosing they start screaming for "justice".

kyleb

Jul29-06, 02:12 PM

Again, the attacks won't disappear regardless of what land Israel holds. Furthermore, the Arab common man can't stop every terrorist attack on Israel just as the Israeli common man can't stop every Palestinian civilian death or Israeli terrorist attack. So with that in mind; should Israel contenue occupy and expand wherever and whenever deemed fit?

Bystander

Jul29-06, 02:32 PM

Again, the attacks won't disappear regardless of what land Israel holds.

This is a position that will eventually result in Islam going the way of the Thug cult in India --- within the century --- there's not room in the world for religions that refractory and reactionary. It moderates itself or ceases to be.

Furthermore, the Arab common man can't stop every terrorist attack on Israel

The Jordanians have made a very credible, "good faith" effort --- or, the Jordanian govt. has --- it is supposedly acting in the interests of the "common man." This is all the Israelis have asked.

just as the Israeli common man can't stop every Palestinian civilian death or Israeli terrorist attack.

The Israelis have been suicide bombing Arab communities at what rate? Compared to the Palestinian rate of, what, couple a month averaged over nearly sixty years? Doesn't "wash" --- "loose gun on deck" here and there, I'm sure, and I'm equally sure that a rule of law is exercised in Israel --- "Stashu" doesn't speak for the country, and "Stashu" ain't gonna start a war for the country, so "Stashu" goes to jail or the looney bin.

So with that in mind; should Israel contenue occupy and expand wherever and whenever deemed fit?

Anytime the "sh*t for brains" militant Arabs and Moslems want 'em to expand, all they have to do is heave a couple rockets at 'em.

Are you getting the picture? Start a fight, get your butts kicked, and lose whatever the Israelis want to take from the table. Don't start fights, and the Israelis leave you alone.

clj4

Jul29-06, 02:46 PM

I've been called up.
Hope this is the last war.
Be back soon.

Good luck, go kick some ***. Come back soon.

Hans de Vries

Jul29-06, 02:57 PM

Not even close --- there is a real language barrier here --- I'll restate it more clearly --- "When the 'sh*t for brains' militant Arabs and Moslems start a fight and the Israelis finish it, as has been customary, the Israelis are perfectly entitled to do whatever they wish with captured territory as spoils of war."

What that means, or, "So what I think," is that if the "sh*t for brains" militants don't start wars, they won't be losing territory, or, if the Arab "common man" wakes up and takes control of his life, and lynches or locks up the "sh*t for brains" militants, he keeps his land, his money, and his life.

Klar?

I find this sort of language disgusting and this should not be allowed here.
I suppose somebody with this kind of aggression and mentality,
born in the Gaza strip, would be among the first to join the extremists.

kyleb

Jul29-06, 03:17 PM

Are you getting the picture?
I belive so; your comparisons overlook how neither Jordanians or Israelis suffer anything even approaching the occupation and expansion Israel imposes on Palestinians, you use the actions of extremists as justification for the occupation and expansion which has continued for nearly four decades, and you show a flagrant disgust with all Muslims to the point that you call for genocide of Islam as a your own final solution. Is that it?

Anttech

Jul29-06, 04:35 PM

How can there be spoils of war, as you not so eloquently put it, if there is no well defined enemy, or rather that enemy isnt actually the government of another country? Perhaps you dont seem to understand that Hezbollah arent actually Lebanon. Its a fringe terrorist group born out of the last Israeli PLO war that took place in Beruit.

Well put. The sh*t for brains started all the wars in the hope of "wiping out" the newly created state and lost all of these wars.
After loosing they start screaming for "justice".Well the Palistans we a tad annoyed at having there land taken of them and given to the Jews during the British Mandate. Think about it for a little minute, what would you do if hypothetically the US lost its next war, and was past onto the administration of (for the sake of argument) France. France then decided to spilt your country in two and give the Land to Muslims. How would you feel about that?

The Israelis have been suicide bombing Arab communities at what rate? Compared to the Palestinian rate of, what, couple a month averaged over nearly sixty years? Doesn't "wash Straighten your facts up a bit, the first suicide attack against Israel by a Palestine was in 1993, maybe my maths is a bit rusty, but I was say thats 13 years not 60.

This is a position that will eventually result in Islam going the way of the Thug cult in India --- within the century --- there's not room in the world for religions that refractory and reactionary. It moderates itself or ceases to be.Would you like to elaborate a bit on that? What makes you believe that Islam is refractory and reactionary?

Anttech

Jul29-06, 04:41 PM

I was referring to the fact that the British could deal with the IRA on British soil. The IDF was not in Lebanon for 6 years now, hence the dissonance between the two cases, making the example void.

The IRA typically were not living in Northern Ireland, they were living in Eire. They would cross the border and bomb the UK, they would also have proxy suicide missions against the UK Military and N.Ireland Civilians. All funded by the Americans. There are many similarities between the two cases, To ignore what happened there and not learn from the experiance of the Brits there would be rather ignorant.

Anttech

Jul29-06, 04:46 PM

Classical islamic apologist stance.

What is an Islamic apologist? Someone who apologies for being a different religion that you? Quite the Racism, please.

loseyourname

Jul29-06, 05:23 PM

Well the Palistans we a tad annoyed at having there land taken of them and given to the Jews during the British Mandate. Think about it for a little minute, what would you do if hypothetically the US lost its next war, and was past onto the administration of (for the sake of argument) France. France then decided to spilt your country in two and give the Land to Muslims. How would you feel about that?

There are large pockets of refugee populations that live in the US. For a simple example, a group of mountain dwellers in Laos known as the Hmong were enlisted to fight alongside the US to bring down the Laotian goverment during the Vietnam War. When they lost, they were relocated to refugee camps in Thailand and promised residence in the US. Not all of the promises have been kept, but there is a huge population in California's central valley in Merced County. There are parts of towns that are basically entirely Hmong. They have never assimilated into the surrounding culture and do create a lot of resentment from the fact that so many live off of welfare rolls and refuse to learn English and continue to practice an animistic religion that involves shamanic rituals and animal sacrifice (which somehow bothers people even though the deaths are a heck of a lot cleaner than what would happen in the average slaughterhouse).

I imagine that if the federal government decided to just carve out a piece of the central valley the size of Israel and let the Hmong govern themselves on it, there would be a good deal of objection to it, but ultimately, Californians would respect the fact that these people have nowhere else to live and there is plenty of other land in California to move to when the government buys you out and gives yours away. I cannot imagine any situation in which native Californians would start to bomb the Hmong ambulances and schoolbuses.

I don't speak for every Californian, but honestly, I've moved plenty of times in my life before. If the government came to me and said I needed to move again to make room for a group of displaced southeast Asians that had suffered a genocide in their own land, I'd gladly do it. Obviously, people in many parts of the world feel more attachment to the land than the average American, who moves two or three times in an adult lifetime, but even so. All of the friends I have from former Soviet republics felt attached to their land as well, but they were smart enough to know when it was best to just leave.

I realize this wouldn't be a truly analagous situation, but it's about as close as anything would ever come in the US. The real point is that the population that became Israel was not exactly in the easiest situation at the time, either. Would it really have been any better if they were simply told to remain in Germany and Poland and wherever else they had been prior to the roundings up? Granted, they wouldn't be in the same position the Hmong would be in, in that they would not have been openly killed by the government of the country they returned to, but even so. There is no easy solution to the problem posed by large groups of refugees that are not particularly well-liked just about everywhere they go.

Think about what happened to other groups of people hurt by the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The situation with the Azeris, Armenians, and Turks has involved just as much displacement, unfair land grabs, and even an all-out genocide, not to mention continued economic depression in the wake of the Soviet breakup. The situation there is arguably even more complex and historically one-sided, yet we do not see Armenians living in Turkey demanding the return of their ancestral land via terrorism. Many have ended up leaving the region entirely, with a heavy heart, no doubt, but is not leaving with a heavy heart just a bit more noble than blowing up schoolchildren? Hell, if the Armenians I've known and conversed with are any indication, many hate the US for its support of Turkey as much as any Arab hates the US for its support of Israel. Yet we haven't seen any Armenian religious groups crashing airplanes into US skyscrapers.

I don't wish to conflate innocent Lebanese and Palestinian civilians with the basically warlord groups attacking Israel, but how much sympathy would there be for an independent Sicily movement that elected a mob syndicate to govern them which subsequently began to attack mainland Calabria with surface-to-surface missiles provided by Libya?

Edit: Perhaps an equally good question to ask is what would the mainstream European and American east coast reaction be if the federal government did decide that because the Hmong had been living in refugee camps for the last thirty years, they did deserve a homeland, and decided to give them one in the central valley, and Californians did decide to go to war with this new country instead of allowing it?

Bystander

Jul29-06, 06:59 PM

I find this sort of language disgusting and this should not be allowed here.
I suppose somebody with this kind of aggression and mentality,
born in the Gaza strip, would be among the first to join the extremists.

Finally --- does your disgust with the lunatic fringe who've been inciting the violence match, or exceed, your disgust with my language? There have been enough "poetic" paraphrases of less primitive statements of the situation that something unambiguous is necessary to clarify the point.

As to the "agression and mentality," and what "should not be allowed here (PF)," attacks on people posting rather than on content are NOT allowed --- check your mirror.

The OP had to do with the current situation and its potential to trigger WW III, hence the reference to "Same ol' sh*t." That is, the 20th century history of the area, and its "cultural traditions."

20th century history:
Ottoman dominion;
collapse of the Ottoman Empire;
League of Nations Mandate to GB, UK, "John Bull," whatever you like;
GB partitions, and withdraws from area in 1948 in accord with UN resolution, supported by or in support of UN resolution, whatever you will, following lengthy negotiations with affected parties;
Palestinians, Arab govts., and Islamic hardheads ignore UN mandate and partitioning agreement, declare war and perform as T. E. Lawrence would have predicted;
having behaved like complete fools, a cultural tradition of compounding the idiocy is invoked, and several more wars are started and lost.

Relevant cultural history:
not worth occupation by Egyptians;
not worth occupation by Greeks;
not worth occupation by Rome;
not worth occupation by Ottomans;
that is, an accidental conditioning of cultural expectation that war does NOT involve loss of territory;
resulting in cultural indignation, surprise, and disappointment following the wars of the 20th century.

Having made fools of themselves, and having found an unexpected "rule" change regarding warfare, we are witnessing the Palestinians going through the "n" stages of grief --- shock, denial, rage, and maybe the day comes when they accept the fact that this is planet earth --- I ain't holding my breath.

__________________________________________________ ____________

Are you getting the picture?

I belive so; your comparisons overlook how neither Jordanians or Israelis suffer anything even approaching the occupation and expansion Israel imposes on Palestinians, you use the actions of extremists as justification for the occupation and expansion which has continued for nearly four decades, and you show a flagrant disgust with all Muslims to the point that you call for genocide of Islam as a your own final solution. Is that it?

A simple "No" suffices --- you needn't demonstrate with incorrect paraphrase.

The Palestinians are "suffering" as a consequence of the actions of Palestinians. The Palestinians will not stop "suffering" the consequences of the actions of Palestinians until such time as they adjust those actions to result in something other than suffering. The Jordanians CONTROL extremists, something the Palestinian Authority would do well to emulate. Most people get the idea that hitting themselves on the head with a hammer hurts after the second or third impact. Do I feel any sort of compassion for Palestinians? A little --- they didn't ask their great grandfathers to be so idiotic as to trust other Arabs in conspiring to make war. I'd feel more so if they weren't insisting that their problems are the result of the actions of someone other than their great grandfathers, and if they actually took steps toward alleviating the problem rather than aggravating it.

"Flagrant disgust" with all M(o,u)sl(e,i)ms? Hardly --- those who listen to the likes of Zawahiri, Nasrallah, and other bearded psychopaths are on their ways to mass graves. The rest of the Islamic world need not follow. They wanta bang their heads against the ground five times a day? That's cool. They want me to pay them for breathing Allah's air? They're in for a big shock.

Gokul43201

Jul29-06, 07:14 PM

LYN, the whole idea of just letting the land go does not apply to a large number of very devout Muslims. It is a terrible sin to do that. In fact, a woman may walk out (from what I've come to understand) on her husband against his wishes and not suffer the consequences if she is doing this to recover so much as a single square inch of Muslim land that was unjustly occupied by someone else.

You are applying an honor sytem to a people that go by a very different one than yours.

kyleb

Jul29-06, 09:06 PM

Where did you get the wife/land bit?

kyleb

Jul29-06, 09:18 PM

And also:
This is a position that will eventually result in Islam going the way of the Thug cult in India --- within the century --- there's not room in the world for religions that refractory and reactionary. It moderates itself or ceases to be.
How is this anything but an ultimatum for genocide?

Bystander

Jul29-06, 09:27 PM

How can there be spoils of war, as you not so eloquently put it, if there is no well defined enemy, or rather that enemy isnt actually the government of another country?

The half of Palestine awarded to the Palestinians in the 1948 partition, which the Palestinians gambled away, the Golan Heights which the Syrians gambled away, the Sinai Peninsula which the Egyptians gambled away and the Israelis gave back, the West Bank which was whatever it was. If there is "no well defined enemy," the Palestinians don't exist, nor the other Arab states and militant Islamic and Arab organizations.

Perhaps you dont seem to understand that Hezbollah arent actually Lebanon. Its a fringe terrorist group born out of the last Israeli PLO war that took place in Beruit.

This is news? When English isn't your first tongue, it's best to avoid constructions like "Perhaps you dont seem to understand ...," when trying to insult people --- assert that I'm unaware of that fact, or ask if I'm aware of that fact --- at least give people the impression you've got both oars in the water. The Lebanese government is hosting Hezbollah, has made no effort to intern, disarm, deport, or otherwise control Hezbollah, and is going to collapse as a result of its impotence. What that has to do with "spoils of war," in this instance is that the Israelis having to clean the Lebanese house of cockroaches are now in a position to "bill" the Lebanese for services, or occupy a "buffer zone" until the Lebanese demonstrate a commitment to controlling their own territory and border.

Well the Palistans we a tad annoyed at having there land taken of them and given to the Jews during the British Mandate. Think about it for a little minute, what would you do if hypothetically the US lost its next war, and was past onto the administration of (for the sake of argument) France. France then decided to spilt your country in two and give the Land to Muslims. How would you feel about that?

Palestine was taken from the Ottomans, given as a "mandate" to the British by the League of Nations, and the British gave half to the Israelis, and half to the Palestinians; there was no Palestinian control of Palestine prior to 1948. The great grandfathers of today's Palestinians then decided to play "all or nothing," and got what they deserved. The U.S. loses a war with France and gets turned over to a buncha sheep thieves, it deserves it. The U.S. picks a fight with France, loses it, and gets turned over to a buncha sheep thieves, it really deserves it.

Straighten your facts up a bit, the first suicide attack against Israel by a Palestine was in 1993, maybe my maths is a bit rusty, but I was say thats 13 years not 60.

Giving the peace-loving Palestinians a break --- average the suicide bombing over the full sixty years of Arab belligerence to cut the rate down to where someone can claim the Israelis are just as nasty. Fine, we'll do it your way --- someone else can post totals for the Israeli suicide bombings --- less than the number of fingers on one hand? And the Palestinians total that many a month --- we can pitch the "Israeli terrorist" argument. Agreed?

Would you like to elaborate a bit on that? What makes you believe that Islam is refractory and reactionary?

"Refractory?" When's the last time an infidel spent a full year in Saudi Arabia? Went sightseeing at the Kaba? That's "refractory."

"Reactionary?" What happened to Anwar Sadat? That's "reactionary."

Bystander

Jul29-06, 09:34 PM

And also:

How is this anything but an ultimatum for genocide?

Islam's direction and fate is up to Islam --- there is no "ultimatum" here. It is a statement of fact; there is no room in the world for a bunch of medeival, spoiled brats like Zawahiri, Nasfallah, bin Laden, and the like. Islam purges itself of the looneys, or the world purges it of looneys. Few more grade schools in Russia, Madrid bombings, WTCs, and that purge the world performs might be prosecuted with more rigor than is necessary, but certainly enough rigor to be prudent.

Does the rest of the world fear Islam? No. It's a caricature of religious lunacy --- is it enough a nuisance to provoke serious responses in the future? Yes.

kyleb

Jul29-06, 10:34 PM

You clearly said that within the century Islam either meets you standards or it ceases to be. That is what you meant, right?

Bystander

Jul29-06, 10:46 PM

You clearly said that within the century Islam either meets you standards or it ceases to be. That is what you meant, right?

Islam meets the world's standards for tolerance of others, restraint of its reactionary membership/adherents, or it's gone with the Thugs, Aztecs, Druids, Nazis, and every other religion built around homicide and/or other criminal activities.

Skyhunter

Jul29-06, 11:20 PM

someone else can post totals for the Israeli suicide bombings
When you have a superior force and can impose your will, why would you resort to suicide bombing?

Reminds me of another war of occupation.

“Give us your bombers and we’ll give you our baskets,” says FLN leader Ben M’Hidi to the French, in reference to Algerian
women hiding bombs in handbaskets. He explains how the insurgents are forced to use their “unconventional” guerilla tactics
because of the disparity in traditional military might, because of the non-reciprocal structure of the conflict. What’s interesting is
that the French take the relatively clever tactics of the Algerians and demonize them as uncivilized and heartless. The French
seem to say: “Look at how the Algerian scum explode bombs in our cafés! It’s so much more refined when war is fought with
modern tanks and planes.”

It is all a matter of perspective. As long as both sides are unwilling to recognize the others grievances, real and/or perceived, they will continue the harsh words, name calling, and violence. Whether they drop bombs them from the air, or blow themselves up in a cafe. Roll in on tanks, bulldoze homes and orchards, or fire rockets from neighborhoods. Both sides are wrong, because violence is wrong.

Hezbollah and Israel are equally guilty for the destruction of Lebanon. And I might add that the US, by supplying the weapons, and keeping the international community from calling for a ceasefire share a portion of the blame as well.

sid_galt

Jul29-06, 11:50 PM

How is this anything but an ultimatum for genocide?

I didn't want to get into this debate but I have to respond to this comment.
If religious fanatics are attacking you and you respond by defending yourself, that is not genocide. That is self-defense. It is the religious fanatics who initiated force.
Right now in the Middle East, it is the Israelis who are defending themselves against their genocide by Arab Muslims (not every Arab Muslim but the overwhelming majority).

To not support Israel in this war is tantamount to sanctioning the massacre (Suicide bombings and a few wars), the Palestinians, with the help of most of the Arab states around Israel, have inflicted on Israel in the past 60 years.

I don't agree with the limited scale of this attack. I would have supported an all out attack on Lebanon and Iran (mainly) without any regard for civilian casualties (the moral responsibility of any civilians caught in crossfire lies with the ones who initiated the war i.e. Iran & its friends). IMO, because of the half-hearted nature of the attack, it will harm rather than help Israel in the long run. But I do support fully Israel's right to defend itself against brutal barbarians.

kyleb

Jul30-06, 02:02 AM

Right now in the Middle East, it is the Israelis who are defending themselves against their genocide by Arab Muslims (not every Arab Muslim but the overwhelming majority).
Exactly how many Arab Muslims is Israel defending against genocide from in the Middle East right now? Also, what means do these Arab Muslims have to inflict genocide on Israel?

Anttech

Jul30-06, 04:21 AM

This is news? When English isn't your first tongue, it's best to avoid constructions like "Perhaps you dont seem to understand ...," when trying to insult people --It is my first tongue! You like to harp on about you world view as if it is *fact* yet you post are riddled with misinformation, and opinion twisted as if it is fact.

Right now in the Middle East, it is the Israelis who are defending themselves against their genocide by Arab Muslims (not every Arab Muslim but the overwhelming majority). Islam has >1.2 billion followers, 300 million of those are 'Arabs'. So an overwhelming majority would be what? For the sake of argument lets assume you mean 200 Million. If 200 million strong Army was to attack a country of 7 Million, I think we can assume that Israel would no longer exist, and those spoils of war which bystander likes to go on about would be in the Arabs domain. Yet strangely enough that isnt actually what is happening, is it?

I don't agree with the limited scale of this attack. I would have supported an all out attack on Lebanon and Iran (mainly) without any regard for civilian casualties (the moral responsibility of any civilians caught in crossfire lies with the ones who initiated the war i.e. Iran & its friends).

Lucky that is the 'overwhelming' consensuses of the free world, and of course the geneva convention and other international human rights contracts, that the leaders of the free world ratified.

Anttech

Jul30-06, 04:37 AM

"Refractory?" When's the last time an infidel spent a full year in Saudi Arabia? Went sightseeing at the Kaba? That's "refractory."

"Reactionary?" What happened to Anwar Sadat? That's "reactionary."

My friend here is about to move to Dubai (Arabic and Islamic state) to start work for an 'infidel' company. I know many people who have worked in Saudi, hell I have even been asked if I would be interested in an interview for a job there. I turned it down because I wouldnt want to be so far from my Family (and I make more money here).

The actions of one person within a community of 1.2 Billion does not constitute anything, nor does it indicate the whole. (Is that not completely obvious?). So why not give some real examples, this time.

sid_galt

Jul30-06, 08:52 AM

Exactly how many Arab Muslims is Israel defending against genocide from in the Middle East right now? Also, what means do these Arab Muslims have to inflict genocide on Israel?

??????
Perhaps I was not clear. I meant that the Israel is defending itself against the genocide (i.e. destroying or killing a political, racial or cultural group - in this case Jews) initiated by the Arab Muslims against Israel which has been going on for the past 60 years.

sid_galt

Jul30-06, 08:57 AM

Islam has >1.2 billion followers, 300 million of those are 'Arabs'. So an overwhelming majority would be what? For the sake of argument lets assume you mean 200 Million. If 200 million strong Army was to attack a country of 7 Million, I think we can assume that Israel would no longer exist, and those spoils of war which bystander likes to go on about would be in the Arabs domain. Yet strangely enough that isnt actually what is happening, is it?

I didn't mean to say that every Arab Muslim is arming himself for assault at this moment. They simply don't have the ability produce that many resources. The overwhelming majority does however sanction the initiation and use of force against Israel. If it didn't their Hezbollah support ing government would have collapsed by now. By supporting the attacks against Israel, they are morally responsible for the murder of the Israelis if not legally so.

Lucky that is the 'overwhelming' consensuses of the free world, and of course the geneva convention and other international human rights contracts, that the leaders of the free world ratified.

What do you mean?

Gokul43201

Jul30-06, 09:17 AM

Where did you get the wife/land bit?Heard it twice on a fairly moderate Middle Eastern TV (interview) show on the Asia Channel (or some similar name). Okay, 'heard' is incorrect; I read it in the sub-titles.

I'll look for supporting sources.

Wow, this may happen to actually be from one of the interviews I watched : http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=820

Edit: Found the entire video: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=820wmv&ak=null

(note to mods: I'm not sure if these links violate guidelines. delete if they do)

Hurkyl

Jul30-06, 09:46 AM

Bystander: The word "Islam" is not synonymous with "Islamism", nor is it synonymous with "Countries whose populations are primarily Islamic".

Gokul43201

Jul30-06, 10:36 AM

News Update:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/world/middleeast/30cnd-mideast.html?hp&ex=1154318400&en=59074a966f18b6b3&ei=5094&partner=homepage

QANA, Lebanon, July 30 — A series of Israeli airstrikes in this small mountain town were the deadliest single attack in the war here so far.

[At least 56 people were killed, most of them children, The Associated Press reported.]

clj4

Jul30-06, 11:55 AM

What is an Islamic apologist? Someone who apologies for being a different religion that you? Quite the Racism, please.

No, it is someone who sucks up to islamists. Like most europeans who hope that they will be spared the islamo-fascist expansion. Today India and Israel are at the foreforont of the battle, tomorrow your country will be the next battlefront. You should know, the belgians are amongst the biggest suckker-up to the islamo-fascists. As a "reward" for its apologism, your country is swimming up in religiously motivated murders. Theo van Gogh, remember?

Anttech

Jul30-06, 12:20 PM

Anttech

Jul30-06, 12:22 PM

News Update:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/world/middleeast/30cnd-mideast.html?hp&ex=1154318400&en=59074a966f18b6b3&ei=5094&partner=homepage

"We must condemn this action in the strongest possible terms," Annan told the council.

"I am deeply dismayed that my earlier calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities were not heeded," Annan said. "I repeat this call once again from this chamber and I appeal to the council to do likewise."

http://today.reuters.co.uk/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-07-30T162029Z_01_N291546_RTRUKOC_0_UK-MIDEAST-UN.xml

How long until Bush will stop this murder? It is in his hands

Anttech

Jul30-06, 12:27 PM

What do you mean?I mean that you are not allowed to wade into civilians with all disregard for human rights, unless you want to throw out the Geneva convention!

So since you have made it clear you hate all Muslims (Or the majority of them), and feel that there lifes are worth nothing what about the Christians in Lebanon? Its full of them, actually its about 50% Christian

Rach3

Jul30-06, 12:31 PM

What the heck is "islamo-fascist" supposed to mean? It sounds like an anti-religious slur to me, perhaps I'm misinterpreting it. Since the mods haven't edited it out, I presume it's less malign than it sounds?

/off topic

Anttech

Jul30-06, 12:38 PM

Rach3

Jul30-06, 12:38 PM

There's a strong suggestion that Iran may get involved very soon:
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's hardline forces should get ready to take revenge on Israel and the United States for the offensive on Lebanon, the head of the Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying on Sunday.

"The Basij and Revolutionary Guards should prepare to get even with the Zionists and Americans," Yahya Rahim-Safavi was quoted as telling Islamic militiamen by the conservative Fars news agency.
...
"The timing of the this will be announced by the leader," he added.
...
Iran's Revolutionary Guards are historically close to Hizbollah and were deployed in south Lebanon during the 1980s. Mostafa Chamran, spiritual father of the Guards, forged his reputation fighting in Lebanon.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-07-30T162043Z_01_OLI055342_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-IRAN-REVENGE.xml&archived=False

kyleb

Jul30-06, 12:55 PM

??????
Perhaps I was not clear. I meant that the Israel is defending itself against the genocide (i.e. destroying or killing a political, racial or cultural group - in this case Jews) initiated by the Arab Muslims against Israel which has been going on for the past 60 years.
I'm am looking for clarifcation here:
Right now in the Middle East, it is the Israelis who are defending themselves against their genocide by Arab Muslims (not every Arab Muslim but the overwhelming majority).
So in where does your perspective stand here; how many Muslims is Israel defending against right now and by what means could those attackers inflict genocide on Israel?

Heard it twice on a fairly moderate Middle Eastern TV (interview) show on the Asia Channel (or some similar name). Okay, 'heard' is incorrect; I read it in the sub-titles.

I'll look for supporting sources.

Wow, this may happen to actually be from one of the interviews I watched : http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=820

Edit: Found the entire video: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/200...820wmv&ak=null/QUOTE]
That video it doesn't support your previous statement:

In fact, a woman may walk out (from what I've come to understand) on her husband against his wishes and not suffer the consequences if she is doing this to recover so much as a single square inch of Muslim land that was unjustly occupied by someone else.

"In fact" would be as in quoting the Koran or something close anyway. What the video you linked shows on man interviewing another man in matters of opinion.

MeJennifer

Jul30-06, 01:15 PM

Does anybody know where we can find an accurate number of civilian deaths and injured. And how many refugees there are and collateral damages such a homes, bridges, schools etc?

Skyhunter

Jul30-06, 01:55 PM

I just finished reading this article and thought I might share it with the readers here. I think it explains the high percentage of civilians compared to Hezbollah guerrillas killed in Lebanon.

You may need to watch an ad for access to Salon.com.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/28/hezbollah/index.html
Throughout this now 16-day-old war, Israeli planes high above civilian areas make decisions on what to bomb. They send huge bombs capable of killing things for hundreds of meters around their targets, and then blame the inevitable civilian deaths -- the Lebanese government says 600 civilians have been killed so far -- on "terrorists" who callously use the civilian infrastructure for protection.

But this claim is almost always false. My own reporting and that of other journalists reveals that in fact Hezbollah fighters -- as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians. Much smarter and better trained than the PLO and Hamas fighters, they know that if they mingle with civilians, they will sooner or later be betrayed by collaborators -- as so many Palestinian militants have been.

A majority of Hezbollah are non-combatants. Hezbollah is the second largest employer in Lebanon.

While I agree that Israel has a right to defend itself, I find the current destruction of a democratic state to be deplorable.

Bystander

Jul30-06, 03:04 PM

Bystander: The word "Islam" is not synonymous with "Islamism", nor is it synonymous with "Countries whose populations are primarily Islamic".

Huh? I haven't used any meaningless, polysyllabic, "made-up" words, "Islamism," at any point in this thread --- whom are you correcting?

Hurkyl

Jul30-06, 03:36 PM

Huh? I haven't used any meaningless, polysyllabic, "made-up" words, "Islamism," at any point in this thread --- whom are you correcting?
See Wikipedia's entry on Islamism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism).

I am correcting your use of the word "Islam" -- it's rather inflammatory to use "Islam" when you mean a small sect of extremists, and is at least confusing to use the word when you really meant to refer to various nations in the area.

Hurkyl

Jul30-06, 03:55 PM

Both sides are wrong, because violence is wrong.
That's a lovely sounding ideal. But an entirely ridiculous standard to try to hold a government to... and it's not even reasonable to hold individuals to such a standard.

Hezbollah and Israel are equally guilty for the destruction of Lebanon.
Why equal? In what ways is Hezbollah guilty? In what ways is Israel guilty? How did you weigh all those factors against each other to determine that they should be equally guilty?

And I might add that the US, by supplying the weapons, and keeping the international community from calling for a ceasefire share a portion of the blame as well.
Why does that earn the US a portion of the blame? And why is the US's portion of the blame worth bringing up over any other particular party's portion of the blame?

I think it explains the high percentage of civilians compared to Hezbollah guerrillas killed in Lebanon.
That one's easy -- AFAIK the bombers are generally after rocket caches and rocket launchers, not guerrillas.

They send huge bombs capable of killing things for hundreds of meters around their targets

Don't you think this sounds suspicious?

kyleb

Jul30-06, 04:31 PM

That's a lovely sounding ideal. But an entirely ridiculous standard to try to hold a government to... and it's not even reasonable to hold individuals to such a standard.
Why do you say that? If some guy cracks your jaw and in response you lop his arms off, you will quite certainly be held responsible for that.

Hurkyl

Jul30-06, 04:40 PM

Why do you say that? If some guy cracks your jaw and in response you lop his arms off, you will quite certainly be held responsible for that.
Of course. Everyone's responsible1 for their own actions. Being responsible doesn't mean being punshed, however. If the guy was continuing his attack, attempting to do a more complete job of it, you probably won't receive any punishment.

1: I hate universals -- I do not indent to assert there are no exceptions to this rule.

Bystander

Jul30-06, 04:48 PM

See Wikipedia's entry on Islamism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism).

I am correcting your use of the word "Islam" -- it's rather inflammatory to use "Islam" when you mean a small sect of extremists, and is at least confusing to use the word when you really meant to refer to various nations in the area.

Have to go back through this trainwreck of a thread and check --- reasonably certain I made the distinction clear that looneys are looneys, and that Islam needed either to control the "small" (not as "small" as one might wish) sect or expect serious consequences; that is, lack of action, praising violence with faint damnation, and other current approaches, condones rather than condemns the current activities, and places Islam in the same position the Lebanese currently occupy regarding Hezbollah --- you got rats and cockroaches in your house and they're creating problems for the neighborhood, you clean them up, ask for help cleaning them up, or figure on being evicted and billed for the fumigation.

Gokul43201

Jul30-06, 05:45 PM

That video it doesn't support your previous statement: It doesn't? Did you watch it completely? Let me quote from the transcript.

According to the hadith of the Prophet Muhammad, not only when an entire homeland is occupied, but when "even an inch of Muslim land is occupied, Jihad is a personal duty, a religious obligation incumbent upon everyone. A wife must go, even without her husband's permission, and a slave must go - if there are slaves, without his master's permission." They must liberate this land - and this is when only an inch is occupied, let alone when it is Palestine, Jerusalem, and Al-Aqsa that are occupied.

This is what I said from my recollection of two such interviews I'd watched:

In fact, a woman may walk out (from what I've come to understand) on her husband against his wishes and not suffer the consequences if she is doing this to recover so much as a single square inch of Muslim land that was unjustly occupied by someone else.

I think I was pretty close, but I'm okay with any correction you impose based on the one transcript. I could always search some more and come up with slightly different versions with each new hit.

"In fact" would be as in quoting the Koran or something close anyway. What the video you linked shows on man interviewing another man in matters of opinion."Another man"? "Opinion"? You don't think the Deputy Head of the Palestinian Clerics Association knows the Quran?

In any case, I don't want to go any further into what the Quran says, so I'm dropping this here.

I was only hoping to elucidate how LYN's point of view would be considered completely outrageous and and such action dishonorable, as far as a certain group of people are involved.

kyleb

Jul30-06, 06:12 PM

Goku, it is hard to say exactly what the guy was talking about and how well he quoted whatever actually text, but even discouting that he says outright that it is from Hadith which is a large collection of works that very greatly in their authoritative value. Besides, look around at all the Muslims who aren't doing anything like that man suggests.

clj4

Jul30-06, 08:44 PM

clj4:

Theo van Gogh was murdered in Amsterdam, last time I looked that was in the Netherlands, not Belgium. Why dont you at least get your facts straight?

Anyway again you are exaggerating, 1 religiously motivated murder (2 actually but the other was a homophobic attack)in the Netherlands are they are "swimming with religiously motivated murders" (Islamic-fascist). Amazing. There are more religiously motivated murders in Scotland and Ireland every month, than in the Netherlands per year and thats Christians killing each other (Protestants v Catholics)..
You asked me what an "apologist" is, I explained it to you.
Yes, both countries (Belgium and Netherlands) suck up big time to the islamists. You "invited" them into your two countries (France as well), now you pander to them. This is what apologists are. Capisci?

Anttech

Jul31-06, 02:10 AM

Yonoz

Jul31-06, 05:45 AM

Hi,
I have a few moments with internet access so I thought I should let you know what I can tell about my experience so far.
The way up north was a little surreal, I've never seen it so empty. It's not completely dead, though we can't find any place from which to order food - military food gets boring after a short while. Luckily the Arab villages are unaffected so I eat their sweets a lot. Artillery and helicopters are heard constantly outside.
The attack on Qana was apparently a terrible misjudgement of the plane and bomb's approach vector. The plane flew in a straight line over the center of Qana in the direction of the rocket launcher (don't know if you've seen the video, it was presented that same day - the rockets were launched a few dozen meters from the building with the civilians). Apparently the bomb fell a little short, a few dozen meters doesn't give much room for error, and the launcher was already heading back into the village (visible in the video). I'm not sure whether the bomb actually hit the building or that it collapsed because it fell so close, the construction in these regions can be very poor (see the results of that Turkey earthquake). We were very unhappy when we heard the news, the bombing came up in most discussions throughout the day. A junior officer who likes to talk nonsense told a joke about something else, another officer thought he was joking about the bombing and got told him off rather loudly. So I'm glad to say there's not much tolerance for unethical behaviour in my unit. Unethical is just another sub-category of unprofessional IMO. I don't mind people getting emotional, and I joke about everything (I'm not as serious in real life), but people should keep emotions and jokes out of the work we do, misjudgements can mean a disaster.
I'd like to tell you more but I can't for obvious reasons. I can only say that Hizbullah are playing very dirty. For example, when the UN coordinate a safety zone for a convoy, they use it to launch rockets before the UN gives the all-clear, then it's quiet again. We have many such safety precautions that leave very little room for dealing with the rockets, making a ground campaign necessary. I estimate we don't fire back around 90% of the time because of safety limits. It's a shame they don't let a news crew report the way we work, I think it would clear up quite a bit for people abroad.
I'll catch some sleep now, see you soon.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul31-06, 06:47 AM

Have to go back through this trainwreck of a thread and check --- reasonably certain I made the distinction clear that looneys are looneys, and that Islam needed either to control the "small" (not as "small" as one might wish) sect or expect serious consequences; that is, lack of action, praising violence with faint damnation, and other current approaches, condones rather than condemns the current activities, and places Islam in the same position the Lebanese currently occupy regarding Hezbollah --- you got rats and cockroaches in your house and they're creating problems for the neighborhood, you clean them up, ask for help cleaning them up, or figure on being evicted and billed for the fumigation.

When you were writing this and feeling somewhat self righteous at the same time, did you stop to consider the causes of fundamentalism, or that without western influence these nutcase would not have the influence they command in the Middle East, were once it was the English(who wisely left when the UN stepped in probably fed up of being terrorist targets) It is now some other "colonialist" powers that are dealing with the hate game. The US and currently Israel seem to have lost reason and now believe the best way to control the fundementalists(war on terror) Is to keep on kicking the beehive untill all the bees are dead, however it's constantly getting stung by this activity but fails to acknowledge this until it's too late. Israel have now turned against the axis of evil militarily:smile: . Iran, Syria and anyone else who happens to be in Americas line of fire and have to my mind climbed on board with the Great Satan :smile: I love propababble don't you?

To my mind the US and Israel and Palestine, Iran, Syria are evil but for different reasons, most of them selfish however. I really don't understand why this issue is just so black and white for those outside of the Middle East, I mean we're reasonable people right? We know there are two sides to every story, why do many people insist on advocating there own pointlessly biased side, be they Israeli or Lebanese, they might have an excuse, but for civilised learned people from oustide of this area it is puzzling?

clj4

Jul31-06, 09:10 AM

I would be interested for examples of this pandering, I would also be interested to understand why your perception is what it is, why dont you attempt to explain? I doubt considering your Geography knowledge of the area you have never been here, am I correct?

Incorrect.

The French and Dutch indeed did invite Moroccans to do the manual labour in their countries around the 60's/70's. The French where colonialist, and actually had administrative control of most of North Africa, thus many of them spoke French, and hence people migrated there.

How about the indonesians that the belgians "invited" over? How about the terrorist cells that were uncovered recently?

However the USA has FAR more Muslims than France and Belgium and the Netherlands combined! There are over 10 Million (AFAIK) in the States, so using your "invited them in" Logic it would seem *you* are also appolgists.

Nope. US has 2.3 according to census. France has 5 (according to census). US doesn't pander to islamists, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Norway, Sweden , do.

Edit, it seems actually that it is closer to 7 Million, even so its still more than NL FR and BE Combined

Do you read your own newspapers? Do you watch your own TV programs? Do you follow your country's pattern of voting at UN?
If you did some of the above , you would understand what "sucking up big" to the islamists means.

clj4

Jul31-06, 09:42 AM

sid_galt

Jul31-06, 09:47 AM

I mean that you are not allowed to wade into civilians with all disregard for human rights, unless you want to throw out the Geneva convention!

Human rights apply to those who respect them, not to those who violate the rights of others (in this case Arab dictatorships violating the rights of Israel by murdering its civilians).

So since you have made it clear you hate all Muslims (Or the majority of them), and feel that there lifes are worth nothing what about the Christians in Lebanon? Its full of them, actually its about 50% Christian

I never said I hate all Muslims. What I do think is that Israel has full rights to defend itself against its enemies regardless of the number of enemy civilian casualties whether the civilians are Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, whatever. Any other policy is immoral and suicidal. (I singled out Arab Muslims for two reasons. 1 - The majority of the Middle East is Muslim. 2 - The terrorists are fighting for the ideology of Islamofascism, that Islam should dominate the world, an ideology which has its roots in the religion - Islam).

The deaths of any innocents caught in crossfire are the moral responsibility of the countries who initiated the war. And if one is really concerned about the net number of civilian casualties, then the further one postporns full scale action against the thugs perpetuating terror, the bloodier any future conflict will get. What would you prefer - that a few thousand die now when the Arab dictatorships are much less powerful than Israel or millions die later when those dictatorships acquire nuclear weapons and provoke a thermonuclear war?
In this situation, asking Israel to proclaim ceasefire is literally asking Israel to give in to evil.

Anttech

Jul31-06, 09:55 AM

How about the indonesians that the belgians "invited" over? How about the terrorist cells that were uncovered recently? Well for someone who has been here, you have zero knowledge. Again it was the DUTCH!

sid_galt

Jul31-06, 09:56 AM

US doesn't pander to islamists, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Norway, Sweden , do.

The US doesn't?

Is that why the US is not willing to even attack Iran's nuclear facilities when they are a mortal threat to the US and the entire free world?
In appeasing the Islamists, the US may not be as bad as the Europeans but its not much better either.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul31-06, 10:01 AM

Human rights apply to those who respect them, not to those who violate the rights of others (in this case Arab dictatorships violating the rights of Israel by murdering its civilians).

I never said I hate all Muslims. What I do think is that Israel has full rights to defend itself against its enemies regardless of the number of enemy civilian casualties whether the civilians are Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, whatever. Any other policy is immoral and suicidal. (I singled out Arab Muslims for two reasons. 1 - The majority of the Middle East is Muslim. 2 - The terrorists are fighting for the ideology of Islamofascism, that Islam should dominate the world, an ideology which has its roots in the religion - Islam).

The deaths of any innocents caught in crossfire are the moral responsibility of the countries who initiated the war. And if one is really concerned about the net number of civilian casualties, then the further one postporns full scale action against the thugs perpetuating terror, the bloodier any future conflict will get. What would you prefer - that a few thousand die now when the Arab dictatorships are much less powerful than Israel or millions die later when those dictatorships acquire nuclear weapons and provoke a thermonuclear war?
In this situation, asking Israel to proclaim ceasefire is literally asking Israel to give in to evil.

Evil is an easy word to use for the other side, in fact I just did it in my last post, it's what we tend to do,vilify those we consider enemies, but don't forget Israel is not a country without sin, to me in this situation evil is indicated merely by which side of the fence you sit on, clearly Palestinians are evil, or Hezbollah or Lebanese arent they and Israel are good, and the US always are smelling of roses in everything they do, the UK have never done anything wrong or anyone else you happen to be allied with. I'd say as I said before The Great Satan and the Axis of Evil are quite apropriate names for either side, depending on where you sit :smile: It may sound like a philosophical argument to try and determine who's right but let's cut the BS, neither side is right, right?

Anttech

Jul31-06, 10:05 AM

Anttech

Jul31-06, 10:08 AM

The deaths of any innocents caught in crossfire are the moral responsibility of the countries who initiated the war. Again this is utter rubbish. Whether or not you start the war, you are still within the eyes of the international community and Courts still obliged to follow the Geneva convention and International Human Rights acts. Thus Israel, know it has just broke some (deliberately or not) has called a 48 Hour cease fire to investigate. Please stop asserting your opinion as if it was fact.

sid_galt

Jul31-06, 10:10 AM

Evil is an easy word to use for the other side, in fact I just did it in my last post, it's what we tend to do,vilify those we consider enemies, but don't forget Israel is not a country without sin, to me in this situation evil is indicated merely by which side of the fence you sit on, clearly Palestinians are evil, or Hezbollah or Lebanese arent they and Israel are good, and the US always are smelling of roses in everythinbg they do, the UK have never done anything wrong or anyone else you happen to be allied with. I'd say as I said before The Great Satan and the Axis of Evil are quite apropriate names for either side, depending on where you sit :smile: It may sound like a philosophical argument to try and determine who's right but let's cut the BS, neither side is right, right?

You're a moral relativist?

Anyway, you claim that neither the West nor the Middle East can claim moral high ground in this war.

I have a few questions:
1) How would you define morality?

2) What is your standard of morality and what are the reasons you hold that standard of morality.

Anttech

Jul31-06, 10:13 AM

Do you read your own newspapers? Do you watch your own TV programs? Do you follow your country's pattern of voting at UN?
If you did some of the above , you would understand what "sucking up big" to the islamists means.

Europe doesnt 'pander' to the will of George Bush. This doesnt mean we pander to Terrorists. 'Old Europe' has its own political agenda and demographics to please. In pleasing ,and bending to the wishes, of your current administration a European politician is committing his own political suicide, just like Blair is doing right now. This is just fact. The reason is nothing to do with being apologetic towards terrorists, it is because our values and political wishes are not in-line with what the Bush admin is offering. Its simple as that.

kyleb

Jul31-06, 10:24 AM

You're a moral relativist?

Nah, moral relativists clam that one side doing more wrong than the other makes that other side right.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul31-06, 10:31 AM

You're a moral relativist?

Anyway, you claim that neither the West nor the Middle East can claim moral high ground in this war.

I have a few questions:
1) How would you define morality?

2) What is your standard of morality and what are the reasons you hold that standard of morality.

That's a bit of a lable and for some odd reason many people don't like to assosciate themselves with the ideas behind relativism, but I think it's fairly close to what I believe, in this situation I'm unbiased so yes I guess you could draw a parallel between me and the moral relativist movement, because I have weighed both sides in terms of cultural,historical, and political outlook. And I refuse to make value judgements on what I've learned. But in reality it's hard to be a moral relativist in the true sense, we all have our biases.

1) I can't define morality in a forum, I suggest if you want a definition you read up on it, it's not something you can cover in anything but a book or series of books, and even if you read them it's a grey area frankly, I'll have to make do with just answering your question in terms of this situation and you can assume away :smile:

2) My standard, another book in the making? :smile: I have never really thought about it like that, in this situation though I'd say to look at all the causes of the situation we find ourselves or see them in and make a decision as to how much of this can be attributed to which side or event and what is the causal relationship; by learning the history either from neutral or biased sources, the politics the ideology, the death tolls, anything in a holistic sense, it's all good, you can get some sort of clearer picture as to who you think you could side with.

In my case it's such a mire of convoluted pseudo-peace and war in the Middle East with atrocities coming from both sides, that I wouldn't in good conscience be able to make up my mind either way, I'm hardly unique in feeling this way though, it's too complicated and has gone on for too long to really understand the sheer breadth of the situation IMHO.

clj4

Jul31-06, 10:48 AM

Well for someone who has been here, you have zero knowledge. Again it was the DUTCH!

You have them too. And a lot more different ones. Try to get the notion of "apologist"
I don't see your answer to my correcting your fudged up census numbers.

clj4

Jul31-06, 10:50 AM

Europe doesnt 'pander' to the will of George Bush. This doesnt mean we pander to Terrorists. 'Old Europe' has its own political agenda and demographics to please. In pleasing ,and bending to the wishes, of your current administration a European politician is committing his own political suicide, just like Blair is doing right now. This is just fact. The reason is nothing to do with being apologetic towards terrorists, it is because our values and political wishes are not in-line with what the Bush admin is offering. Its simple as that.

Right..... You imported them because of cheap labor and low demographics. Now they are running you out of your own country, out of your (former) values. Wait another generation. Your children will be muslims.You will be a muslim (if you aren't one already). Keep on apologising, it might save your head when it comes to conversion.

Oh, by the way, your states pander to the arabs.
And Blair is doing very well for a person that is "committing political suicide" he has been one of GB's longest running PM's. One of the longest running "suicides", n'est pas?

Anttech

Jul31-06, 11:27 AM

Yes I have seen some state 2 Million and I have seen some state 7 million. Actually since America was founded on religious freedom and the way it does its census it is impossible to know.

Belgium has never imported any Indonesians, some may have migrated but they didnt ask them to come. I doubt you will admit you total lack of knowledge about Europe but anyway.

Blair is not doing well since the Iraq war, his rating right now are the lowest he has ever had, straight after he cuddled up to the US stance on Israel's attacks on Lebanon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/10/nlab10.xml
Tony Blair, who broke all records for public approval when he entered No 10 nine years ago, is now the most unpopular Labour Prime Minister of modern times, a YouGov survey for The Daily Telegraph shows today.

Only 26 per cent of voters are satisfied with Mr Blair's performance, lower than Harold Wilson's 27 per cent rating in May 1968 after devaluation of the pound.
:rolleyes:

I know this was 2 months ago, I will find you a link that demonstrates that he is doing even worse now.

Now they are running you out of your own country, out of your (former) values. Wait another generation. Your children will be Muslims.You will be a Muslim (if you aren't one already). Keep on apologising, it might save your head when it comes to conversion.This is absurd, and actually rather racist. Where did you read that tosh?

Hans de Vries

Jul31-06, 01:10 PM

You have them too. And a lot more different ones. Try to get the notion of "apologist"

Googling for "Islamic apologist" pours out a long list of religious hate sites.
Not much of a surprise since it implies that Islamic people in general
have something to apologize for. You seem to have Islamo-phobia.

Rural America may have large mono-cultural area's however Silicon Valley
for example has a just as high percentage of people from Arab decent as
Western Europe. Many Pakistani engineers.

There are lots of people from Lebanon in the US as well. The number of people
from Lebanese decent in the U.S. is 450,000. The total population of Lebanon
is 3,800,000 so that's about 12%.

Regards, Hans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Lebanon

Bystander

Jul31-06, 02:30 PM

(snip)
did you stop to consider the causes of fundamentalism, or that without western influence these nutcase would not have the influence they command in the Middle East,

"Fundamentalism" has been a big part of Islam since long before modern European states were established and very long before Europeans colonized the Americas. "Western influence" has nothing to do with stimulating a "fundamentalist" movement --- NO SALE.

(snip) and (snip)

clj4

Jul31-06, 03:02 PM

This is absurd, and actually rather racist. Where did you read that tosh?

"Now they are running you out of your own country, out of your (former) values. Wait another generation. Your children will be Muslims.You will be a Muslim (if you aren't one already). Keep on apologising, it might save your head when it comes to conversion."

Truth hurts, eh? You can see your future. Yours and all the others that pander to islam.

clj4

Jul31-06, 03:12 PM

Googling for "Islamic apologist" pours out a long list of religious hate sites.
Not much of a surprise since it implies that Islamic people in general
have something to apologize for. You seem to have Islamo-phobia.

No, Hans

I put a mirror to the people of Europe that pander to the islamo-fascists. "Apologist" is someone who sucks up big to the islamic states and politics. You know: the govenments of Netherlands,Belgium, France, Spain, Sweden, Norway, etc, etc.

Rural America may have large mono-cultural area's however Silicon Valley
for example has a just as high percentage of people from Arab decent as
Western Europe. Many Pakistani engineers.

Yes, this is true. But US doesn't pander to islam. Old europe does, in the hope of being spared when the moment comes. It will not help, in one or two generations, the al-quaida dream of an islam empire from India to Spain will be realised.

There are lots of people from Lebanon in the US as well. The number of people
from Lebanese decent in the U.S. is 450,000. The total population of Lebanon
is 3,800,000 so that's about 12%.

Regards, Hans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Lebanon

So, what is the relevance of the above? We are talking about apologists, right? The people that went along with the nazis in WWII , were rescued by US and now go along with the islamo-nazis only to find out that US will not rescue them again.
The apologists are the people that sold the jews then in the hope of getting a reprieve from the nazis, the people that are trying to selll the jews now, only to be surprised that they now have a very strong country. So they cannot be sold again. Some history repeats itself (what the old europeans are doing) some doesn't (what the americans and the israelis are doing). Your countries will be swallowed by islam, the eastern europeans will survive and so will US and Israel. Wake up!

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul31-06, 03:24 PM

"Fundamentalism" has been a big part of Islam since long before modern European states were established and very long before Europeans colonized the Americas. "Western influence" has nothing to do with stimulating a "fundamentalist" movement --- NO SALE.

At least you didn't use the term strawman :smile:

What I meant was not did we cause the foundation of fundementalism but did we by our actions give them more influence than they deserve, it's impossible for a non Islamic sate or a non Muslim person to create and Islamic movement, but we can make it seem more palatable, if someone is feeling hate for a country, then someone who corrupts the faith to portray a valid justification for hate can seem more appealing.

AFAIK fundementalism only really took off in the 20th century, which is exactly when we and I mean England and others started looking towards the middle East as a means of exploitation in oil(please understand I am not drawing modern parallels here, I don't want to get into a "is gulf war II all about oil" debate, it's not relevant) I hope that clarifies my post.

Of course the UN partition plan didn't help, but that is a western deal which had no support amongst Arabs, in fact they were never asked, good or bad, Israel having a state is also irrelevant I can't change history and ask that the non secular zionists( their was a great deal of opposition to the founding of a Jewish sate in the Middle East believe it or not) That founded the movement step into a time machine and chose the US or UK as a better location, to ease tension :smile:

Anttech

Jul31-06, 03:43 PM

So, what is the relevance of the above? We are talking about apologists, right? The people that went along with the nazis in WWII , were rescued by US and now go along with the islamo-nazis only to find out that US will not rescue them again.

Your History is almost as weak as your Geography. I especially like the "Islamo-Nazis" part, did you make that up all on your own? Honestly Europe is fine, but thanks for asking..

clj4

Jul31-06, 03:46 PM

Man that is funny...

It is not going to be so funny when your country is enslaved. With your own contribution.

clj4

Jul31-06, 03:48 PM

Your History is almost as weak as your Geography. I especially like the "Islamo-Nazis" part, did you make that up all on your own? Honestly Europe is fine, but thanks for asking..

And the lying and denying marches on, just like in the dawn of WWII. You sold out then to the nazis, you sell out today to the islamists. The difference will be in the ending: the americans freed you of the nazis, they'll let you rot under islam. Well deserved ending.

Anttech

Jul31-06, 03:49 PM

So, what is the relevance of the above? We are talking about apologists, right? The people that went along with the nazis in WWII , were rescued by US and now go along with the islamo-nazis only to find out that US will not rescue them again.No You speak in rhetoric, with no examples. You dont back up any of your statements, and seem to try and pass them up as some sort of universal Fact (My children wil be Muslims). To "put a mirror up" so to speak you have to at least know what it is you are putting a mirror up against. But it makes for some funny reading..

Skyhunter

Jul31-06, 03:50 PM

That's a lovely sounding ideal. But an entirely ridiculous standard to try to hold a government to... and it's not even reasonable to hold individuals to such a standard.
:confused: :confused: :confused: You expect me to hold a government other than my own accountable?

What was the term you used...."entirely ridiculous."

Why equal? In what ways is Hezbollah guilty? In what ways is Israel guilty? How did you weigh all those factors against each other to determine that they should be equally guilty?
It takes two to tango.

Why does that earn the US a portion of the blame? And why is the US's portion of the blame worth bringing up over any other particular party's portion of the blame?
Iran and Syria as well almost every other nation that has become involved should accept some culpability. I mentioned the US because I am an American. As an American I will exercise my right to criticize the actions of my government until they take those rights away. Then I will criticize LOUDER!

That one's easy -- AFAIK the bombers are generally after rocket caches and rocket launchers, not guerrillas.
The end result is that civilians are bearing the brunt of the attack and Israel is losing International support.

Don't you think this sounds suspicious?
Yes. My first thought was ban bait.

Anttech

Jul31-06, 03:56 PM

And the lying and denying marches on, just like in the dawn of WWII. You sold out then to the nazis, you sell out today to the islamists. The difference will be in the ending: the americans freed you of the nazis, they'll let you rot under islam. Well deserved ending.

Are you accusing me of lying? Would you like to point out where I was lying, or will you retract that statement?

clj4

Jul31-06, 03:56 PM

No You speak in rhetoric, with no examples. You dont back up any of your statements, and seem to try and pass them up as some sort of universal Fact (My children wil be Muslims). To "put a mirror up" so to speak you have to at least know what it is you are putting a mirror up against. But it makes for some funny reading..

Go out in your streets, you will see the "examples".
Go ride in the trains and metros blown to pieces, mixing body parts with train parts, you will see the examples.
Need more?

Anttech

Jul31-06, 03:59 PM

Go out in your streets, you will see the "examples". I have just been outside, and I am fine, whats your point? I have lived in Europe all my puff, and I have lived in the Largest Cities in Europe, and I have been just fine.
Go ride in the trains and metros blown to pieces, mixing body parts with train parts, you will see the examples.
Need more?I ride the train most day, and the metro here everyday... Honestly what are you talking about?

clj4

Jul31-06, 03:59 PM

Are you accusing me of lying? Would you like to point out where I was lying, or will you retract that statement?

Yes, you are lying. To yourself. Because you are denying the obvious: that your world is changing around you and that your values are being overrun by your "guests". Hope that you are happy with them, report back when "Sharia" has replaced your legal system and when your church has been bought, demolished and replaced with a mosque.
Let us know how you separate body parts from train parts, body parts from cafe furniture, etc.

clj4

Jul31-06, 04:10 PM

I have just been outside, and I am fine, whats your point? I have lived in Europe all my puff, and I have lived in the Largest Cities in Europe, and I have been just fine.
I ride the train most day, and the metro here everyday... Honestly what are you talking about?

Let us know when you learned how to separate body parts from metal parts. Maybe you need to go to school in Mumbai, London,Tel-Aviv or Madrid. Wait! If you wait long enough you can "experience" it in your home town (not that I am wishing that on you). But it will help waking you up from your apologetic state.

Anttech

Jul31-06, 04:13 PM

At the core of Globalisation is migration, being an American you should probably be aware of that. In Europe we have quiet a Large free market, people move about quiet easy, and people come from other cultures to our lands because we have a good economy. People who believe in Islam, come here for this reason. They are not our guest, they are here to work (in the majority). Our Churches are fine thank you very much, the last one I saw get burnt down was by a devil worshipping cult in Norway (due to one of your exports, death metal music).

I am not lying, and I resent that you are asserting I am. I live in Europe, and to be honest, if YOU are a representation of the values that the USA brings to the table, then honestly, I would prefer to convert to Islam. That being said, I know that you are not.

Your rhetoric and sensationalism is really amusing, you have probably broken quiet a few Forum rules here, are you aware of the guidelines you agreed to before you stated posting?

kyleb

Jul31-06, 04:18 PM

The apologists are the people that sold the jews...
They didn't do it alone:

As far as Zionism is concerned, the founder of Zionism and apostate, Theodor Herzl, sought to intensify hatred of the Jew in order to enhance the cause of political Zionism. Here are some of his “pearls”:

“It is essential that the sufferings of Jews. . . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-semites shall be our best friends”. (From his Diary, Part I, pp. 16)

Additional words from the vivid imagination of this dreamer, from p. 68 of Part I of his Diary.

So anti-Semitism, which is a deeply imbedded force in the subconscious mind of the masses, will not harm the Jews. I actually find it to be advantageous to building the Jewish character, education by the masses that will lead to assimilation. This education can only happen through suffering, and the Jews will adapt.

...

At the Nuremberg Trials of Major War Criminals, Nazi propagandist, Julius Streicher testified: “I did no more than echo what the leading Zionists had been saying”, it is clear that he had told the truth.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/zanda.cfm

I highly recomend reading the whole article there as well as looking around the rest of the website.

Anttech

Jul31-06, 04:21 PM

Actually I have lived in London, been to Madrid many times, and was brought up in Glasgow. I have been to Belfast on numerous occasions, but utimatly my Family is Greek. I have seen what terrorist do, CHRISTIAN terrorists, I have had a friend carved up by a UDF thug because he was wearing a Celtic football strip. You are trying to "teach or grandfather how to suck eggs" son. I have never had any problems with any Muslims I work with, I can tell you as fact they arent "taking over Europe" and "demolishing" all the churches. Yes there has been problems, with Al-qeda. But I tend not to make sweeping statements about a demographic of 1.2 Billion people. You are just going to have to accept that Islam is here to stay, if you dont and carry on the direction you are going, one day you may just turn out like that which you *hate*

clj4

Jul31-06, 04:22 PM

At the core of Globalisation is migration, being an American you should probably be aware of that. In Europe we have quiet a Large free market, people move about quiet easy, and people come from other cultures to our lands because we have a good economy. People who believe in Islam, come here for this reason. They are not our guest, they are here to work (in the majority). Our Churches are fine thank you very much, the last one I saw get burnt down was by a devil worshipping cult in Norway (due to one of your exports, death metal music).

You are in denial. Like the europeans that sold out to the nazis before WWII in the hope that they will be left alone. There are no more jews to sell this time.
So maybe you should look at the pictures from Mumbai, London,Madrid,Tel-Aviv and...New York one more time.
Europe before WWII was very nice and quiet. Enjoy the "quiet" until the next bombing. Who knows, it might come in Bruxelles, Liege or whatever. This may shake you up and make you change your song.

I am not lying, and I resent that you are asserting I am. I live in Europe, and to be honest, if YOU are a representation of the values that the USA brings to the table, then honestly, I would prefer to convert to Islam.

Looks like you may have already done it.

clj4

Jul31-06, 04:26 PM

They didn't do it alone:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/zanda.cfm

I highly recomend reading the whole article there as well as looking around the rest of the website.

Smells foul, classical arab history revisionism mixed with good old nazi propaganda. No thanks.

Anttech

Jul31-06, 04:26 PM

LOL... :rofl: :rofl:

Europe before WWII was very nice and quiet. Enjoy the "quiet" until the next bombing. Who knows, it might come in Bruxelles, Liege or whatever. This may shake you up and make you change your song.

Actually just before WW2 was WW1. Were you aware of that? I wouldnt say we were "ohh so quiet" We were busy killing each other. There may or may not be a bombing in Brussels. There have already been terrorist activity in Belgium by the Vlam-Block a Neo-Nazi type outfit from Flanders (No they are NOT Muslims) who are trying to break up Belgium into Wallonia and Flanders.

Anttech

Jul31-06, 04:29 PM

Smells foul, classical arab history revisionism. No thanks.

About True Torah Jews Against Zionism

True Torah Jews is a non-profit organization formed by a group of religious Orthodox Jews dedicated to informing the world and the American public and politicians in particular, that the idealogy of Zionism is in total opposition to the teachings of traditional Judaism.

True Torah Jews
183 Wilson Street
PMB 162
Brooklyn, NY 11211

Donations by check or money order may be mailed to the above address. Your generous support is needed and will be greatly appreciated!

Donations can be made with a credit card through PayPal.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/about/index.cfm

Hmmm well perhaps Arabs, as technically Israel is an Arabic state, but revisionism, care to back that up, or are you not going to bother again?

Anttech

Jul31-06, 04:32 PM

You are in denial. Like the europeans that sold out to the nazis before WWII in the hope that they will be left alone. There are no more jews to sell this time.

Who sold who out? Please (I am asking nicely, no?) could you expand on that a bit? Which Europeans sold out, and what are you asserting by saying that?

clj4

Jul31-06, 04:34 PM

clj4

Jul31-06, 04:36 PM

Who sold who out? Please (I am asking nicely, no?) could you expand on that a bit? Which Europeans sold out, and what are you asserting by saying that?

The people of the many european countries who either signed pacts and/or colaborated with the nazis . Do you need a history refresher? France, Belgium, Netherlands, etc.

kyleb

Jul31-06, 04:37 PM

Smells foul, classical arab history revisionism mixed with good old nazi propaganda. No thanks.
It is an Orthodox Jewish website explaining their history, some of them being people who suffered though the horrors of WW2 themselves. Beyond that the quotes are authentic and all properly soured. Please don't turn your back on the facts here:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/zanda.cfm

clj4

Jul31-06, 04:38 PM

Hmmm well perhaps Arabs, as technically Israel is an Arabic state, but revisionism, care to back that up, or are you not going to bother again?

Hmm, what is your question? You can't recognise arab rehashes of nazi propaganda?

Anttech

Jul31-06, 04:39 PM

Yes, I would like you to show me these pacts, and I would like to you start collaborating your statements with the small thing we call Historical fact.

clj4

Jul31-06, 04:39 PM

It is an Orthodox Jewish website explaining their history, some of them being people who suffered though the horrors of WW2 themselves. Beyond that the quotes are authentic and all properly soured. Please don't turn your back on the facts here:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/zanda.cfm

Yes, very serving to arab propaganda. Besides, your quote was by a nazi at the Nurnberg trial, Very convenient.

Anttech

Jul31-06, 04:41 PM

Hmm, what is your question? You can't recognise arab rehashes of nazi propaganda?

I am asking you to back up your statements with some explanation (Not rhetoric) and of course some facts to back up your statements would be nice.

Bystander

Jul31-06, 04:44 PM

(snip)What I meant was not did we cause the foundation of fundementalism but did we by our actions give them more influence than they deserve, it's impossible for a non Islamic sate or a non Muslim person to create and Islamic movement, but we can make it seem more palatable, if someone is feeling hate for a country, then someone who corrupts the faith to portray a valid justification for hate can seem more appealing. AFAIK fundementalism only really took off in the 20th century, which is exactly when we and I mean England and others started looking towards the middle East as a means of exploitation in oil(please understand I am not drawing modern parallels here, I don't want to get into a "is gulf war II all about oil" debate, it's not relevant) I hope that clarifies my post.

India, John Keay, gives a good picture of "moderate" Islam vs. "fundamentalist" Islam during the Mogul, Moghul, Muhgal, era; you might also want to look into the "Old Man in the Mountain" and his (their) "hashshashin, hashishin, assassins" --- depending on sources, they look a lot like the model bin Laden styles himself after, or you'll read that they're "apostates." Sunni, Shia, Wahabi, this, that, and the other Caliphate, and the squabbles among them all have been going on for a millennium. The point being that they've been making a colossal mess of the cultures, politics, and social structures of the area for well over a thousand years. Acknowledgment of the root of the squabbles, who's got first dibs on the collection plates, is never made by any of the parties to the squabbles; the squabbles are instead attributed to the actions of outsiders, infidels, "the Great Satan," and any other number of puerile excuses, much the same as the "fact" that no group of 8-12 year olds have ever put baseballs through neighbors' windows --- birds swooped down, grabbed the ball and dropped it, it rolled into the street and a passing truck squeezed it under a tire and it popped out like a watermelon seed, a passing biker gang grabbed it and deliberately threw it through the window --- you can as easily attribute "the rise of fundamentalism" to the rise of the "dial an excuse industry" Freud started --- they aren't fundamentalists because they're ignorant, greedy, vicious, vindictive people --- they're fundamentalists because 90% of the world's population enjoys a better standard of living without Islam, and it makes them look and feel bad about themselves --- we've destroyed their "self-esteem."

clj4

Jul31-06, 04:45 PM

Yes, I would like you to show me these pacts, and I would like to you start collaborating your statements with the small thing we call Historical fact.

First off learn how to write English. You claim that you lived all over Europe but you can't write: it is "corroborate' , not "collaborate".

Second off, you are so proud of your knowledge of history, do you remember the many non-aggression pacts signed with the nazis? (Russia: Molotov-Ribbentrop, Great Britain: Chamberlain, etc, etc).

As to "collaborationists", you are probaly too young to remember the after war trials in Norway, France, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland (remember the concentration camps), Czechoslovakia (remember the concentration camps) and...in your own country of birth, Greece. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborationism

Looks like both your birth country and your adopted one figure high on the list. .

Have you had enough? Do you want more?

kyleb

Jul31-06, 04:55 PM

Yes, very serving to arab propaganda. Besides, your quote was by a nazi at the Nurnberg trial, Very convenient.

The first two quotes in what I sited up there were not from a Nazi, but rather from Theodor Herzl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl), and that is not propaganda of any sort but rather historical fact. If you want to toss the blame around about how WWII happened, let us be sure to count all the heads.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/zanda.cfm

clj4

Jul31-06, 04:59 PM

The first two quotes in what I sited up there were not from a Nazi, but rather from Theodor Herzl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl), and that is not propaganda of any sort but rather historical fact. If you want to toss the blame around about how WWII happened, let us be sure to count all the heads.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/zanda.cfm

Classical revisionism: blame the victims. Your quote was from a nazi war criminal quoting Herzl.
Today, the islamo-fascists are taking pages from their nazi mentors in terms of justifying their actions (see Iran's president quotes)
Give it up, u are not fooling anyone.

kyleb

Jul31-06, 05:04 PM

Your quote was from a nazi war criminal quoting Herzl.

No, the first two quotes in what I sighted above are direct from Herzl's diary. Please quit ignoring these facts:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/zanda.cfm

Anttech

Jul31-06, 05:04 PM

In Europe there is only 3 countries that speak English, whats your point? I never said I was proud of my history, would you like to point out where I said that?

Second off, you are so proud of your knowledge of history, do you remember the many non-agression pacts signed with the Nazis? (Russia: Molotov-Ribbentrop, Great Britain: Chamberlain, etc, etc). No I am too young to remember those :rolleyes: Sorry about that. (And its aggression not agression)

So you are asserting that the pacts that Russia and GB signed with the Nazi's were because they were colluding with the Nazi's in order to sell them Jews to Exterminate? Is that what you are asserting? (By the way in case you didnt realise Russia isnt in Europe)

kyleb

Jul31-06, 05:06 PM

blame the victims.
And no I don't blame the victims at all, again that site is supported by such victims and their decedents.

clj4

Jul31-06, 05:13 PM

In Europe there is only 3 countries that speak English, whats your point? I never said I was proud of my history, would you like to point out where I said that?

No I am too young to remember those :rolleyes: Sorry about that. (And its aggression not agression)

So you are asserting that the pacts that Russia and GB signed with the Nazi's were because they were colluding with the Nazi's in order to sell them Jews to Exterminate? Is that what you are asserting? (By the way in case you didnt realise Russia isnt in Europe)

No, your pedantry is only equaled by your lack of comprehension. Read the posts again. BTW, you are very good at selective quoting. Helps with twisting the facts but doesn't help with making your case. Keep apologising, see what's in stock for you:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp

Oh, about pedantry : a big part of Russia IS in Europe. But you are too young to know that.

Did you see the nice part on the Greek collaborators ? No? Try reading, ask your parents, they might set you straight. Maybe you will stop being so antisemitic after you talk with them . They lived the times, they can tell you first hand what went on.

clj4

Jul31-06, 05:15 PM

No, the first two quotes in what I sighted above are direct from Herzl's diary. Please quit ignoring these facts:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/zanda.cfm

...quoted by the nazi war criminal. You are doing a fine job.

Anttech

Jul31-06, 05:15 PM

As to "collaborationists", you are probaly too young to remember the after war trials in Norway, France, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland (remember the concentration camps), Czechoslovakia (remember the concentration camps) and...in your own country of birth, Greece. See here:Didnt realise Glasgow was in Greece :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#German_Invasion_of_Greece_and_Crete

Greece was commended by the Allies after the war for there courage, there will be trators everywhere. Churchill was even quoted saying No longer will people say that Greeks fight like brave men, they will say brave men fight like Greeks. Again you smear the VAST majority by the actions of the few.

Anttech

Jul31-06, 05:23 PM

No, your pedantry is only equaled by your lack of comprehension. Read the posts again. BTW, you are very good at selective quoting. Helps with twisting the facts but doesn't help with making your case. Keep apologising, see what's in stock for you:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp

Comprehension?

You are in denial. Like the europeans that sold out to the nazis before WWII in the hope that they will be left alone. There are no more jews to sell this time.

...

Who sold who out? Please (I am asking nicely, no?) could you expand on that a bit? Which Europeans sold out, and what are you asserting by saying that?

...

The people of the many european countries who either signed pacts and/or colaborated with the nazis . Do you need a history refresher? France, Belgium, Netherlands, etc.

...

Yes, I would like you to show me these pacts, and I would like to you start collaborating your statements with the small thing we call Historical fact.

...

First off learn how to write English. You claim that you lived all over Europe but you can't write: it is "corroborate' , not "collaborate".

Second off, you are so proud of your knowledge of history, do you remember the many non-agression pacts signed with the nazis? (Russia: Molotov-Ribbentrop, Great Britain: Chamberlain, etc, etc).

As to "collaborationists", you are probaly too young to remember the after war trials in Norway, France, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland (remember the concentration camps), Czechoslovakia (remember the concentration camps) and...in your own country of birth, Greece. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborationism

Looks like both your birth country and your adopted one figure high on the list. .

Have you had enough? Do you want more?

...

No I am too young to remember those Sorry about that. (And its aggression not agression)

So you are asserting that the pacts that Russia and GB signed with the Nazi's were because they were colluding with the Nazi's in order to sell them Jews to Exterminate? Is that what you are asserting? (By the way in case you didnt realise Russia isnt in Europe)

...

No, your pedantry is only equaled by your lack of comprehension. Read the posts again. BTW, you are very good at selective quoting. Helps with twisting the facts but doesn't help with making your case. Keep apologising, see what's in stock for you:

Considering we were talking about Jews, and you asserted that the Europeans sold out the jews with pacts, I think I was asking a rather on topic question, which once again, you choose to ignore and continue to insult me.

So answer the question, Are you asserting the pact that were between GB and Germany and Russia and Germany were to sell out the Jews?

kyleb

Jul31-06, 05:27 PM

...quoted by the nazi war criminal. You are doing a fine job.
No they are directly quoted from Herzl's diary by a group of Jewish people who are victims and decedents of that Nazi war criminal's Victoms. Please stop denying historical fact here, and read this:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/zanda.cfm

Anttech

Jul31-06, 05:32 PM

Did you see the nice part on the Greek collaborators ? No? Try reading, ask your parents, they might set you straight. Maybe you will stop being so antisemitic after you talk with them . They lived the times, they can tell you first hand what went on.You are now accusing me of being anti-semitic? Please show me where I was being anti-semitic. Maybe I was being anti-"kill all the Lebanese civilians".

What have my parents got to do with this?

Can you stop insulting me, I am getting a bit tired of this

clj4

Jul31-06, 05:35 PM

Didnt realise Glasgow was in Greece :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#German_Invasion_of_Greece_and_Crete

Greece was commended by the Allies after the war for there courage, there will be trators everywhere. Churchill was even quoted saying Again you smear the VAST majority by the actions of the few.

Hmm,

Are you a lawyer? What Glasgow -you told us that you are Greek, if you live in Glasgow this doesn't make it your BIRTH country, right? Can you read (and comprehend). Here is the stuff straight off wiki:

"In Greece, general Tsolakoglou, who did not represent the Greek government in exile, signed the surrender of Greece in April 1941. Tsolakoglou was awarded for this contribution the ledership of the first Nazi-held puppet government in Athens. Tsolakoglou was followed by Logothetopoulos, who wished to create a Greek division for the Waffen-SS. Although he failed to, he helped some thousand die-hard fascists and national-socialist (some from the previous quasi-fascist regime of Ioannis Metaxas of 1936-1941), anti-communist and anti-semite Greeks to volunteer and enroll in the German Army. The third Greek collaborationist regime was headed by Ioannis Rallis. Unlike in other countries, most Greek collaborators and far-right sympathizers enjoyed prominent posts in the post-war Greek governments"

I am starting to wonder , you obviously lie to yourself, are you lying to everyone else? It isn't working.

Anttech

Jul31-06, 05:43 PM

In Greece, general Tsolakoglou, who did not represent the Greek government in exile

Exactly. As I said there are always a few nutters.

I am starting to wonder , you obviously lie to yourself, are you lying to everyone else?Ohh so you are calling me a liar! I am glad we cleared that up.

Greece did indeed have a civil war after ww2, however the people you are trying to represent as the Greek common person, were defeated. I am not Anti-Semantic, and I RESENT that accusation. I am sure there are people who hate Jews in Greece, and I am sure there are people who hate Jews in the USA, but does that mean that you are also Anti-semantic?

Anttech

Jul31-06, 05:47 PM

Hmm,

Are you a lawyer? What Glasgow -you told us that you are Greek, if you live in Glasgow this doesn't make it your BIRTH country, right? Can you read (and comprehend).

That was a quick edit, but yes I did actually say I was "brought up in Glasgow" Not lived but brought up. I said my Family is Greek. Yes I can read, can you?

Actually I have lived in London, been to Madrid many times, and was brought up in Glasgow.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul31-06, 05:53 PM

India, John Keay, gives a good picture of "moderate" Islam vs. "fundamentalist" Islam during the Mogul, Moghul, Muhgal, era; you might also want to look into the "Old Man in the Mountain" and his (their) "hashshashin, hashishin, assassins" --- depending on sources, they look a lot like the model bin Laden styles himself after, or you'll read that they're "apostates." Sunni, Shia, Wahabi, this, that, and the other Caliphate, and the squabbles among them all have been going on for a millennium. The point being that they've been making a colossal mess of the cultures, politics, and social structures of the area for well over a thousand years. Acknowledgment of the root of the squabbles, who's got first dibs on the collection plates, is never made by any of the parties to the squabbles; the squabbles are instead attributed to the actions of outsiders, infidels, "the Great Satan," and any other number of puerile excuses, much the same as the "fact" that no group of 8-12 year olds have ever put baseballs through neighbors' windows --- birds swooped down, grabbed the ball and dropped it, it rolled into the street and a passing truck squeezed it under a tire and it popped out like a watermelon seed, a passing biker gang grabbed it and deliberately threw it through the window --- you can as easily attribute "the rise of fundamentalism" to the rise of the "dial an excuse industry" Freud started --- they aren't fundamentalists because they're ignorant, greedy, vicious, vindictive people --- they're fundamentalists because 90% of the world's population enjoys a better standard of living without Islam, and it makes them look and feel bad about themselves --- we've destroyed their "self-esteem."

Nah, we've destroyed their self esteme not at all(you know this) We simply don't understand their culture, their history, or their idealogy, and frankly we don't want to.

Freuyd is wrong, it's nothing of the sort. It's just a dark and sad case to destroy an argument, because we're not talking to anyone who is an Arab, just making judgements based on a culture we don't understand, I would expect better from Freuyd. And I would expect better from those who claim to have an education, and validity, it's simply pointless when you have no understanding of history. Freuyd yeah like Godwyns law doesnt crop up there :smile: